Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Ronald Watkins Williams, esquire, Member for Wigan, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA SOUTH OF THE SAHARA (TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Governments were represented at the Conference in Ghana to establish the Foundation for Mutual Assistance in Africa South of the Sahara; and what decisions were made.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): The hon. Member will have seen the very full reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish) on 10th March. The purpose of the meeting was to inaugurate the new Foundation for Mutual Assistance in Africa South of the Sahara, which the members of the Commission had decided to establish, and to mark their approval of its constitution.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst welcoming the earlier reply and what the hon. Gentleman has now added, may I ask him how this co-operation for technical assistance is to be linked with the United Nations Agency of Technical Assistance and with the proposal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa?

Mr. Harvey: There is no proposal to link it. It operates separately, but obviously some of the ground which it will cover will be the same.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Delargy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Her Majesty's Government last supplied arms or aeroplanes to the Government of Cuba.

Mr. Ian Harvey: No arms or aeroplanes have been supplied by Her Majesty's Government to the Cuban Government since the war.

Mr. Delargy: I am delighted to hear this news. As a matter of interest, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of Cuba are behaving with the utmost ferocity towards decent freedom-loving people on the island, and will he agree that to such a Government we should not give approval, let alone encouragement?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harvey: I do not think that arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (HUNGARY)

Colonel Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the Resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly condemning the Soviet Union's military suppression of the attempt by Hungary to regain her independence; by what majorities these Resolutions were passed; and to what extent they have now been complied with by the Soviet Government.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Commander Allan Noble): In all, the General Assembly of the United Nations has passed eleven Resolutions on Hungary. Of these, four directly condemned military intervention by the Soviet Union. I am arranging for the texts of these four Resolutions and for the figures regarding the voting on them to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These Resolutions were adopted by majorities ranging from forty-eight votes to eleven with sixteen


abstentions, to sixty votes to ten with ten abstentions. The Soviet Government ignored all these Resolutions.

Colonel Beamish: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the tragedy of Hungary has been deepened since last summer by reason of the fact that the Soviet Government, so far from complying with the United Nations Resolutions, have viciously tightened the screw? Is my right hon. and gallant Friend further aware that many thousands of Hungarians have been deported, hanged or sent to prison or to forced labour since last summer?

Commander Noble: I think that this Question and answer point to the fact that the General Assembly has no power to enforce its Resolutions and that this is an example of what may happen when a country refuses to abide by them.

Following are the resolutions:

Oral Answers to Questions — RESOLUTION 1004 (ES-II)

The General Assembly,

Considering that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members,

Recalling that the enjoyment of human rights and of fundamental freedom in Hungary was specifically guaranteed by the Peace Treaty between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers signed at Paris on 10 February, 1947, and that the general principle of these rights and this freedom is affirmed for all peoples in the Charter of the United Nations,

Convinced that recent events in Hungary manifest clearly the desire of the Hungarian people to exercise and to enjoy fully their fundamental rights, freedom and independence,

Condemning the use of Soviet military forces to suppress the efforts of the Hungarian people to reassert their rights,

Noting moreover the declaration of 30 October, 1956, by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of its avowed policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States,

Noting the communication of 1 November, 1956, of the Government of Hungary to the Secretary-General regarding demands made by that Government to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the instant and immediate withdrawal of Soviet forces,

Noting further the communication of 2 November, 1956, from the Government of Hungary to the Secretary-General asking the Security Council to instruct the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of Hungary to start negotiations immediately on the withdrawal of Soviet forces,

Noting that the intervention of Soviet military forces in Hungary has resulted in grave loss of life and widespread bloodshed among the Hungarian people,

Taking note of the radio appeal of Prime Minister Imre Nagy of 4 November, 1956,

1. Calls upon the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to desist forthwith from all armed attack on the people of Hungary and from any form of intervention, in particular armed intervention, in the internal affairs of Hungary;

2. Calls upon the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to cease the introduction of additional armed forces into Hungary and to withdraw all of its forces without delay from Hungarian territory;

3. Affirms the right of the Hungarian people to a government responsive to its national aspirations and dedicated to its independence and well-being;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to investigate the situation caused by foreign intervention in Hungary, to observe the situation directly through representatives named by him, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at the earliest moment, and as soon as possible to suggest methods to bring an end to the foreign intervention in Hungary in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

5. Calls upon the Government of Hungary and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to permit observers designated by the Secretary-General to enter the territory of Hungary, to travel freely therein, and to report their findings to the Secretary-General;

6. Calls upon all Members of the United Nations to co-operate with the Secretary-General and his representatives in the execution of his functions;

7. Requests the Secretary-General in consultation with the heads of appropriate specialised agencies to inquire, on an urgent basis, into the needs of the Hungarian people for food, medicine and other similar supplies, and to report to the General Assembly as soon as possible;

8. Requests all Members of the United Nations, and invites national and international humanitarian organisations to cooperate in making available such supplies as may be required by the Hungarian people.

564th plenary meeting,

4 November, 1956.

Resolution 1004 (ES-II) was adopted by 50 votes to 8 with 15 abstentions.

Oral Answers to Questions — RESOLUTION 1005 (ES-II)

The General Assembly,

Noting with deep concern that the provisions of its resolution 1004 (ES-II) of 4 November, 1956, have not yet been carried out and that the violent repression by the Soviet forces of the efforts of the Hungarian people to achieve freedom and independence continues.

Convinced that the recent events in Hungary manifest clearly the desire of the Hungarian people to exercise and to enjoy fully their fundamental rights, freedom and independence,

Considering that foreign intervention in Hungary is an intolerable attempt to deny to the Hungarian people the exercise and the enjoyment of such rights, freedom and independence, and in particular to deny to the Hungarian people the right to a government freely elected and representing their national aspirations,

Considering that the repression undertaken by the Soviet forces in Hungary constitutes a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Peace Treaty between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers,

Considering that the immediate withdrawal of the Soviet forces from Hungarian territory is necessary,

1. Calls again upon the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to withdraw its forces from Hungary without any further delay;

2. Considers that free elections should be held in Hungary under United Nations auspices, as soon as law and order have been restored, to enable the people of Hungary to determine for themselves the form of government they wish to establish in their country;

3. Reaffirms its request to the Secretary-General to continue to investigate, through representatives named by him, the situation caused by foreign intervention in Hungary and to report at the earliest possible moment to the General Assembly;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report in the shortest possible time to the General Assembly on compliance herewith.

571st plenary meeting,

9 November, 1956.

Resolution 1005 (ES-II) was adopted by 48 votes to 11 with 16 abstentions.

Oral Answers to Questions — RESOLUTION 1131 (XI)

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned over the tragic events in Hungary,

Recalling those provisions of its resolutions 1004 (ES-II) of 4 November, 1956, 1005 (ES-II) of 9 November, 1956, 1127 (XI of 21 November, 1956, and 1130 (XI) of 4 December, 1956, calling upon the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to desist from its intervention in the internal affairs of Hungary, to withdraw its forces from Hungary and to cease its repression of the Hungarian people,

Recalling also those provisions of its resolutions 1004 (ES-II) and 1127 (XI), calling for permission for United Nations observers to enter the territory of Hungary, to travel freely therein and to report their findings to the Secretary-General,

Having received the report of the Secretary-General of 30 November, 1956, stating that

no information is available to the Secretary-General concerning steps taken in order to establish compliance with the decisions of the General Assembly which refer to a withdrawal of troops or related political matters, and the note of the Secretary-General of 7 December, 1956,

Noting with grave concern that there has not been a reply to the latest appeal of the General Assembly for the admission of United Nations observers to Hungary, as contained in its resolution 1130 (XI),

Considering that recent events have clearly demonstrated the will of the Hungarian people to recover their liberty and independence,

Noting the overwhelming demand of the Hungarian people for the cessation of intervention of foreign armed forces and the withdrawal of foreign troops,

1. Declares that, by using its armed force against the Hungarian people, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is violating the political independence of Hungary;

2. Condemns the violation of the Charter of the United Nations by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in depriving Hungary of its liberty and independence and the Hungarian people of the exercise of their fundamental rights;

3. Reiterates its call upon the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to desist forthwith from any form of intervention in the internal affairs of Hungary;

4. Calls upon the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to make immediate arrangements for the withdrawal, under United Nations observation, of its armed forces from Hungary and to permit the re-establishment of the political independence of Hungary;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to take any initiative that he deems helpful in relation to the Hungarian problem, in conformity with the principles of the Charter and the resolutions of the General Assembly.

618th plenary meeting,

12 December, 1956.

Resolution 1131 (XI) was adopted by 55 votes to 8 with 13 abstentions.

Oral Answers to Questions — RESOLUTION 1133 (XI)

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1132 (XI) of 10 January, 1957, establishing a Special Committee, consisting of representatives of Australia, Ceylon, Denmark, Tunisia and Uruguay, to investigate, and to establish and maintain direct observation in Hungary and elsewhere, taking testimony, collecting evidence and receiving information, as appropriate,

Having now received the unanimous report of the Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary,

Regretting that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the present authorities in Hungary have failed to co-operate in any way with the Committee.

1. Expresses its appreciation to the Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary for its work;

2. Endorses the report of the Committee;

3. Notes the conclusion of the Committee that the events which took place in Hungary in October and November of 1956 constituted a spontaneous national uprising;

4. Finds that the conclusions reached by the Committee on the basis of its examination of all available evidence confirm that;

(a) The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, has deprived Hungary of its liberty and political independence and the Hungarian people of the exercise of their fundamental human rights;
(b) the present Hungarian régime has been imposed on the Hungarian people by the armed intervention of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
(c) The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has carried out mass deportations of Hungarian citizens to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
(d) The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has violated its obligations under the Geneva Conventions of 1949;
(e) The present authorities in Hungary have violated the human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty of Peace with Hungary;

5. Condemns these acts and the continued defiance of the resolutions of the General Assembly;

6. Reiterates its concern with the continuing plight of the Hungarian people;

7. Considers that further efforts must be made to achieve the objectives of the United Nations in regard to Hungary in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the Charter and the pertinent resolutions of the General Assembly;

8. Calls upon the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the present authorities in Hungary, in view of evidence contained in the report, to desist from repressive measures against the Hungarian people, to respect the liberty and political independence of Hungary and the Hungarian people's enjoyment of fundamental human rights and freedoms, and to ensure the return to Hungary of those Hungarian citizens who have been deported to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;

9. Requests the President of the eleventh session of the General Assembly, H.R.H. Prince Wan Waithayakon, as the General Assembly's special representative on the Hungarian problem, to take such steps as he deems appropriate, in view of the findings of the Committee, to achieve the objectives of the United Nations in accordance with General Assembly resolutions 1004 (ES-II) of 4th November, 1956, 1005 (ES-II) of 9th November, 1956, 1127' (XI) of 21st November, 1956, 1131 (XI) of 12th December, 1956, and 1132 (XI) of 10th January, 1957, to consult as appropriate with the Committee during the course of his endeavours, and to report and make recommendations as he may deem advisable to the General Assembly;

10. Decides to place the Hungarian item on the provisional agenda of the twelfth session of the General Assembly.

6771h plenary meeting,

14th September, 1957.

Resolution 1133 (XI) was adopted by 60 votes to 10 with 10 abstentions.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the election of a president of the United Arab Republic, it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to afford de jure recognition to the Republic.

Commander Noble: No occasion has yet arisen calling for a formal decision by Her Majesty's Government to accord de jure recognition of the United Arab Republic.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the withdrawal of Chinese Communist troops from North Korea and the proposal of the Peking Government for the holding of free elections in Korea under neutral supervision, he will make a statement on the policy which Her Majesty's Government will advise the United Nations to adopt in this regard.

Mr. Owen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement of Government policy on the Chinese People's Government's official proposal for disengagement in North Korea.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) on 3rd March. Consideration of the Communist proposals is continuing in consultation with the other Governments concerned, but I am not at present in a position to add to that reply.

Mr. Henderson: Is it the view of the Government that, in the event of free elections being held in Korea, they should be supervised by the United Nations observers?

Mr. Harvey: That is a slightly different question, and I think it unwise to give in advance unilateral answers on matters needing consultation.

Mr. Owen: How long can the House anticipate it will be before the Government's consideration of this matters takes place? Some weeks have elapsed since the reply was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies). Is this not a unique opportunity whereby the United Nations can be drawn into consultation on the matter and secure a probable disengagement of forces which might lead to a useful pilot scheme?

Mr. Harvey: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, consultation is not a matter which one participant can control. It is a question of all being agreed. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is as the result of the refusal to abide by United Nations' decisions that many of these difficulties arise.

Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House through what agency the consultations are taking place? Is the Director-General of the United Nations involved in them?

Mr. Harvey: That is another question, but I will endeavour to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL NORSTAD (STATEMENT)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, assented to the Commander-in-Chief of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, General Norstad, publicly demanding tactical nuclear weapons for Western Germany.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, assented to the statement by General Norstad that the equipment of the Bundeswehr with tactical nuclear weapons was indispensable.

Mr. Ian Harvey: The assent of Her Majesty's Government was not required.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact this statement of General Norstad cuts right across the Rapacki Plan which is a matter for consideration by the Summit Conference, and is it not highly undesirable that the N.A.T.O. Commander

should be allowed publicly to take a line contrary in a matter for decision by Government members of N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Harvey: The decisions of the N.A.T.O. Commander are subject, of course, to N.A.T.O. In a matter of this kind, it is quite impracticable to clear speeches of this kind before they are made.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that according to a recent poll eight out of 10 Germans, and surely a higher proportion of the British people, are against giving nuclear weapons to the German army, and will not this kill the Rapacki Plan and the hope of peace in Europe even before the Governments have a chance to discuss it?

Mr. Harvey: Any discussions between the Supreme Commander and the Governments of N.A.T.O. are a matter between him and those Governments. As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I think that has no bearing upon it at all.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member will be aware that this speech by General Norstad did, in fact, alarm quite a number of people. Is N.A.T.O. an abstract organisation for which we have no governmental responsibility at all?

Mr. Harvey: If the speech by General Norstad alarmed a number of people, it is not the first speech which has alarmed a large number of people.

Mr. Bevan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman knows to what I am referring. He knows also that decisions about speeches by the Supreme Commander can be reached by consultation within N.A.T.O., and if the matter arises I have no doubt it will be discussed.

Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Member inform the House that the Government will take the responsibility of raising the matter at N.A.T.O.? How can it be raised at N.A.T.O. if nobody raises it?

Mr. Harvey: We are not nobody.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB REFUGEES

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the decision of the State of


Israel to release bank accounts to the value of 8 million dollars in favour of Arab refugees and their offer to the United Nations to pay compensation for abandoned lands as a contribution to Arab refugee settlement; whether the United Nations has yet conveyed this offer to any of the Arab countries; and with what result.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose through the United Nations that a fresh effort be made to re-settle the Palestinian refugees within the Iraq-Jordan confederation with the aid of United Nations and Jewish funds.

Commander Noble: As my right hon. Friend said in the House on 27th November, 1957, we shall play our part as members of the United Nations in seeking a solution of the Palestine problem on a basis of justice; and a settlement of the refugees is an essential condition of a final settlement.
I am aware that the Israel Government began in March, 1953, to release the accounts which belonged to Arab refugees but which had until then been blocked in Israel banks. The Conciliation Commission reported in October, 1956, that about 7½ million dollars of the funds in question had been released, out of an estimated total of about 8½million dollars.
This action appears to have no connection with the question of compensation for abandoned lands and so far as Her Majesty's Government are at present aware no new initiative in this respect has been taken by the Israel Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to answer my Question? What I wished to know was whether this gesture had been taken up with the United Nations and conveyed to the Arab countries. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered that part of the Question. Does he not regard this gesture as very welcome as possibly leading to a solution of one of the principal problems concerning the Middle East?

Commander Noble: I certainly hope that this gesture may lead to the solving of this problem, but I think that the Arab countries and the United Nations are well aware of the information to which the right hon. Gentleman has

drawn our attention. This started in 1953, and the moneys concerned were funds which belonged to the refugees and had been blocked.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to answer my question? Is it quite explicit. What I want to know is whether the United Nations has taken any action in the matter and conveyed this gesture to the Arab countries. Will he answer that?

Commander Noble: I am afraid I have not got that information—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's Question will have drawn attention to it. As I said in my Answer, this has been going on since 1953. I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman had got some new information for us. If so, I shall be very glad to have it.

Mr. Grimond: While appreciating that this matter has a long history, may I ask whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not think that the situation has altered somewhat owing to the confederation of Iraq and Jordan, coupled with the present offer by the Israel Government making funds available? Is not this the moment, possibly, for some new effort to be made to encourage a trickle of refugees moving within the Confederation into the fertile crescent and thus lessen tension a little?

Commander Noble: I think it is a little too early to judge this very recent development in the Middle East.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that for some years a trickle has been going from Jordan to Iraq and that some resettlement has taken place in Iraq, and that perhaps it would be just as well if not too much attention were called to it because, if not, the trickle may grow into a flood?

Commander Noble: That is what I was trying to imply.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (FRONTIERS)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to ascertain the willingness, or otherwise, of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to join with the three major Western Powers in a guarantee of


the present frontiers of the Middle East, including those of Israel, against any change by force.

Commander Noble: It will be recalled that in a Note to the Soviet Government last year, Her Majesty's Government pointed out that the Arab-Israel dispute was the main focus of tension in the Middle East. The Soviet Government's reply did not accept this view and gave no indication of willingness to contribute towards reducing this cause of tension.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not a fact that on at least two occasions through Mr. Khrushchev and through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the Soviet Government did indicate their willingness to discuss this matter of frontiers and a standstill of arms in that area? Surely this is a matter we ought to pursue, or are we to understand that the Foreign Office is doing absolutely nothing in the matter?

Commander Noble: I think that what the hon. Gentleman suggests must be looked at against the background of the Soviet reply of 3rd September last year, in which they said that the United Kingdom Government's view of the situation did not correspond with the facts and that the real basis for a peaceful settlement would be established if the three Western Powers ceased to use Israel as a tool for their colonialist policy.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a considerable amount of anxiety about certain statements which have been made recently by the Government in relation to the frontiers, and will he make it clear that, so far as frontiers are concerned, it would be absurd to ask Israel to do anything in the nature of giving up any portion of its territory which altogether is only a very small piece of land?

Commander Noble: I think the Government have made their position quite clear on a number of occasions recently. I do not think it arises out of this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL EUROPE

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in the course of negotiations on the agenda for

a Summit Conference, he will press for the inclusion of the establishment of an area of disengagement in Central Europe; and if, as part of Her Majesty's Government's long-term policy of building the strength and effectiveness of the United Nations, he will press for the necessary inspection and control agency to be responsible directly to the United Nations and not to consist of contingents seconded from national forces and responsible primarily to national States.

Commander Noble: The question of the agenda for a Summit Conference is one for negotiation. I do not think it would be useful to take up a public position in advance of such negotiations.

Mr. Beswick: Surely the Minister of State can say whether, in addition to their general support of the United Nations, the Government are prepared to do something in particular, and is this not an area in which the United Nations' forces could operate not only for the advantage of Europe but the world generally? Surely we can have some idea of what the long-term policy of the Government is?

Commander Noble: That may well be. I do not exclude the possibility, if any such scheme as the hon. Member suggests were agreed, that the United Nations would have a useful part to play; but I think it would be premature to go into that now.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say meanwhile whether our experience of United Nations inspection and control teams in North Korea has been particularly encouraging?

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R.

Territorial Waters

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the declaration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that the waters surrounding Vladivostok beyond the three-mile limit are internal, what representations have been made to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by Her Majesty's Government on this matter.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Her Majesty's Government made representations to the Soviet Government through Her


Majesty's Embassy at Moscow on 10th September, 1957. In their view, the Soviet claim is unwarranted by any evidence that the Bay had previously been claimed as Soviet internal waters. It also has no foundation in international law, and is contrary to the principle of the freedom of the seas.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the differences between a number of Governments about territorial waters, is any attempt to be made to secure international agreement through an international conference on this matter?

Mr. Harvey: There is a considerable conference taking place upon this subject at the present time.

Exchanges of Students

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will discuss with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the possibility of an interchange of students between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the introduction of scholarship awards on a reciprocity basis.

Mr. Ian Harvey: These matters are already under discussion between the Soviet Relations Committee of the British Council and the Soviet authorities. In my reply of 27th January to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), I gave details of various proposals which have been put forward by the Committee. The Committee is still awaiting a definite answer from the Soviet side, but the arrangements for the visit of 300 Soviet students and young people to the United Kingdom have made some progress, and two groups covered by this scheme have already visited this country. There has been no definite answer so far on the Committee's proposal for an annual exchange of twenty language students in each direction and on the offer of two British Council scholarships each year.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Under-Secretary for that reply, can we take it that if there is any delay in this matter it is entirely due to the Soviet and not to this end, and that in the future, as in the past, we will do everything possible to try to get an interchange such as is suggested in the Question?

Mr. Harvey: That is what I said.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN PACT)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official proposals he has received relating to the formation of a Mediterranean pact or other treaty arrangement with France concerning North Africa; and if he will give an assurance that this country will enter such an arrangement only on condition that it recognises the right of self-determination for Algeria.

Commander Noble: The French Prime Minister recently stated that he would shortly make concrete proposals for a Western Mediterranean pact. Other proposals in the same field have of course also been made in the past by other countries in the area, notably Morocco and Tunisia. Her Majesty's Government have not yet received details of any of these proposals. When we do so we will of course give them the fullest consideration. Our concern will be to see whether these various ideas can be brought together and thus lead to an arrangement which will serve the interest of all the countries in the area. But I do not think it would be helpful to take up any hard and fast position on these various proposals until we know more about their details.

Mr. Zilliacus: Whilst appreciating the point made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in view of the strong feelings on this subject, would he make it clear that Mr. Gaillard's proposal that this pact should include French Algeria is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government?

Commander Noble: I think we should wait until we hear the French Prime Minister's proposals in detail.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALGERIA

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will draw the policy of repression in Algeria to the notice of the Security Council under Article 34 of the Charter as a circumstance tending to cause friction between France and her Arab neighbours; and if he will put on the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly, under Article 10 of the Charter, the systematic violation of the French Army


authorities in Algeria of Article 5 of the Declaration on Human Rights, approved by the General Assembly in 1948, which prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishments.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will, under Article 24 of the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, draw the attention of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe to the breach by the French military authorities in Algeria of Articles 3 and 15, paragraph (2), of this Convention, prohibiting torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment even in times of war or public emergency, and request him to bring the matter to the notice of the European Commission on Human Rights.

Commander Noble: No, Sir. It would not be appropriate to take such action.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at least make it clear that the Government no longer adopt the position they did when Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris on 14th July, 1946, sent a message to the French Government stating:
We are on your side in Algeria. We ardently desire the success of your efforts in Algeria.
Will he make it clear that the people of this country stand on the side of the gallant minority in France who are struggling to uphold the great traditions of French civilisation and against the torturers and Fascists who are dishonouring their country?

Commander Noble: I think we should make it clear that the allegations which have received publicity recently relate to events which took place some time ago, and that the Commission set up by the French Government to investigate the allegations of torture has published its report. This shows that the French Government are taking the matter very seriously.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that a Convention on Human Rights has been adopted by the Council of Europe, is it not desirable that when such a convention is challenged by charges there should be an opportunity for those charges to be proved or disproved in the way proposed in these Questions?

Commander Noble: I do not think I have anything to add to my reply, in which I said that the French Government appointed a commission and have published its report.

Mr. Edelman: To keep the matter in proportion, is it not the case that the French authorities, far from condoning outrageous behaviour of the kind mentioned in the Questions, have convicted and punished 363 individuals, who have been condemned for behaviour of this kind?

Commander Noble: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the Algerian refugee problem is being considered by the Anglo-American good offices committee now at work.

Commander Noble: Our purpose in the good offices is to help the French and Tunisian Governments to come to an agreement on certain acute issues and to resume their direct negotiations. It is of course of the essence of the good offices procedure that the discussions should remain confidential.

Mr. Benn: Is it not a fact that 100,000 Algerian refugees are now in Tunisia, that recently they were coming over the frontier at the rate of 400 a day, that over 50 per cent. of them were children, and that the United Nations refugee workers have described these as the worst conditions they have ever come across? Will not the British Government say anything about this problem, which is at the centre of Franco-Tunisian difficulties at the moment?

Commander Noble: I do not think this comes within the terms of reference of the good offices of which I have just told the House. I think I have myself answered a Question put by the hon. Gentleman on this subject. I believe he knows that the International Red Cross is at present organising the distribution of relief to Algerian refugees in Tunisia and that voluntary bodies in this country, such as the Save the Children Fund, are assisting the International Red Cross in this work.

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take at the United Nations, as a signatory of the


Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to raise the question of the violation of human rights by the French authorities in establishing a no-man's land in Algeria.

Commander Noble: This question has already been drawn to the attention of the United Nations by means of a letter from the Tunisian representative dated 26th February and a reply from the French representative dated 5th March. Both of these letters have been circulated in the United Nations as Security Council documents.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not tell the House what is the view of the British Government in this matter, in that an area thirty miles wide and 250 miles long is to be cleared of all its inhabitants, who number 350,000 people, and that this is probably one of the greatest forced evictions of civil populations ever made? Will not the Government give some indication that they take this matter seriously?

Commander Noble: The statements of the two representatives at the United Nations, to which I have just referred, give a very different picture of what has happened. The facts have not been established, and it would be unwise to place reliance on various reports that have been made public, some of which seem to have been considerably exaggerated.

Mr. Bevan: If it is the fact that the French Government are proposing to clear a large number of people along the frontier, would the British Government make representations to the French Government that they should hold their hand in this matter until the good offices committee has done its work or some counter-proposals have arrived from President Bourguiba, which I think are expected?

Commander Noble: I do not think this arises out of the Question, which refers to the good offices committee.

Mr. Bevan: No, no——

Mr. Benn: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (REUNIFICATION)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the unification of Germany must precede any disengagement or disarmament of East and West Germany.

Commander Noble: The policy of Her Majesty's Government is that any measure of disengagement or disarmament must be considered in relation to the military and political circumstances in which it would take place, that is to say, whether it would increase or decrease security and stability. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that there can be any lasting security in Europe so long as Germany remains divided.

Mr. Grimond: Whilst appreciating what the Minister has said, has he noticed that the German Government themselves made a statement over the weekend saying that this is a matter which must be considered at any Summit Conference? Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to have preliminary discussions with the German Government about this question, which seems to be an important preliminary to any meetings with the Russians?

Commander Noble: Of course, there will be discussions amongst our allies about these matters.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Does the Minister really mean that if any prospect of either disengagement or disarmament presents itself, it is the policy of the Government to sacrifice that prospect in the interests of German reunification?

Commander Noble: What I do mean to say is that, without defining exactly the disengagement or disarmament proposals envisaged, it is difficult to deal with this in question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAYS

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further information he has concerning the possibility of an out of court settlement for compensation for the shareholders of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways; and what intimation he has received of the extent to which the company would be prepared


to accept this and to accept Her Majesty's Government's good offices to help bring it about.

Mr. Ian Harvey: The Argentine Government have not replied to the memorandum which the company submitted in February, 1957, stating its willingness to enter into negotiations for an out of court settlement. Her Majesty's Government have supported the representations made by the company and will continue to give all the assistance they reasonably can.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that there has been some misunderstanding in the Argentine as to whether the company was prepared to settle out of court, and in view of the fact that all through the year the company has been making it clear that it wants this to happen, will my hon. Friend realise how grateful the company will be for the Government's powerful support in clarifying the situation?

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to limit the number of persons claiming diplomatic immunity in London.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Her Majesty's Government consider that the number of persons entitled to claim diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom must always be limited to those who are properly qualified by the nature of their functions. Due regard must be paid to the principles of international law and to the requirements of reciprocity in this matter. For these reasons, any unilateral and arbitrary limitation of the number of privileged persons would be out of the question.
The power, which already exists in the Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Act, 1955, to reduce the immunities enjoyed by any class of members of foreign diplomatic Missions in London to the extent necessary to correspond with any limitation of the immunity enjoyed by Her Majesty's diplomatic servants in foreign countries, has been duly exercised.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all sorts and conditions of

people are now entitled to these diplomatic immunities and privileges? Does he know of the case at Bow Street last Thursday when a British chauffeur who had parked an American car for 75 minutes in a restricted area "got away with it"? Is not this business of diplomatic privilege tending to get haywire and out of hand?

Mr. Harvey: It is possibly the interpretation of the situation by the hon. Gentleman which is getting a bit haywire. It is not the case that all sorts and conditions of people are entitled to claim diplomatic immunity. It is only those who come within the clear terms of reference to which I have referred.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread abuse of C.D. plates on motor cars? Is he aware that anybody can buy a C.D. plate—I or anybody else—and that the holder of such a plate is given preferential treatment by the police? I hope my hon. Friend will not say that this is a matter for the Minister of Transport. It is the business of the Foreign Office.

Mr. Harvey: As a matter of fact, it is the business of the Home Office.

Mr. H. Morrison: How many people are protected by diplomatic immunity in this country? Is the hon. Member aware that there is a developing public feeling to the effect that this is being overdone and that, as a result, some people can sail around and do what they like without regard to the provisions of British law? Ought not something to be done to limit the numbers of these extraordinarily privileged people?

Mr. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with experience and, I think, knows that the numbers are limited under the terms to which I have referred. I can give him quite shortly the numbers of the heads of foreign diplomatic Missions accredited to the Court of St. James' and their suites. There are 3,090, including 898 wives, while there are 2,633 Commonwealth representatives, including 869 wives. The arrangements are reciprocal and apply to our representatives in foreign countries.

Mr. Bevan: In order to get the figures in some sort of proportion, will the hon


Member consider telling the House the numbers in. say, New York and Paris and places like that?

Mr. Harvey: I am prepared to give a very full reply on this subject, but not just now.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.E.A.T.O. MEETING, MANILA

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent he discussed the possibility of a Summit Conference when attending meetings in Manila, Philippines, recently, in connection with the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation; and whether he will make a statement on these discussions.

Commander Noble: My right hon. and learned Friend took the opportunity to have informal discussions with Mr. Dulles and M. Pineau on preparations for a Summit Conference. In view of their confidential nature, he would not wish to say more than that he and his two colleagues found themselves in broad agreement.

Mr. Lewis: Was it a confidential discussion? Has the Minister not seen reports in the Press of what is alleged to have taken place? Would it not be better for the Minister to give us at least some idea of whether Mr. Foster Dulles had it all his own way, or whether our own Foreign Secretary was able to bring pressure to bear on Mr. Foster Dulles?

Commander Noble: I think the hon. Member had better rely on the official communiqué published after the conference.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what agreement with Mr. Dulles really means?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Rural Electrification (Grants)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will arrange that grants for electrification under the farm improvement scheme shall be given in cases where the farmer makes his financial contribution towards the capital cost of the electricity

service in quarterly instalments and not in one lump sum down.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Arrangements already exist for the payment of grant in such cases where the farmer pays by a limited number of instalments. My right hon. Friend is considering whether arrangements can be made for payment of grant where the farmer arranges to pay on a fixed charge basis without time limit.

Mr. Palmer: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that answer, is he aware that the present system to a great extent cancels out much of the advantage which the farm improvements scheme was supposed to give to rural electrification?

Mr. Godber: I realise that there are difficulties in some areas, but we should not exaggerate the matter. My right hon. Friend is looking into it. It is a very difficult problem, as I think the hon. Member knows.

Bacon

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage the level of bacon imports calculated to the latest convenient date exceeds the level of imports for the comparable period of 1957; and from which countries imports have been made during 1958.

Mr. Godber: Bacon imports during January were 11 per cent. greater than in the corresponding period last year. They came from Denmark, Holland, the Irish Republic, Poland, South Africa and Sweden. A small quantity of 300 tons is also recorded as coming from other countries. The latest indications are that imports are at the moment decreasing.

Mr. du Cann: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the proper order of priorities in the home market should be that the home producer should have first place, the Empire producer second, and the foreign producer third? Is he satisfied that the present arrangements about bacon are satisfactory for achieving that desirable aim?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I remind my hon. Friend that bacon is, of course, only one


part of the pig market and represents only about one third of it. If he takes into consideration the pork market and the guarantees to home producers, he will see that the criteria which he has set out have been observed.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the consumer come somewhere in that order of priorities? What attention is being given to his requirements?

Mr. Godber: Bacon is and has been available at very reasonable prices just lately.

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Farmers' Union and other interested bodies in regard to his letter of 21st February on bacon pigs; and what replies he has made.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has had letters from the British Bacon Curers' Federation and the National Farmers' Union commenting on his letter of 21st February and asking him to reconsider his decision. He has replied that he remains unconvinced that the bacon situation justifies a change in our present policy or in our present arrangements for the marketing of pigs. My hon. Friend will have noticed the improvement in the price of bacon pigs since last month.

Mr. du Cann: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Minister will continue, as he undertook to do in that letter of 21st February, to keep this very difficult matter under constant review?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I will gladly give that undertaking. The present trend of prices is an indication of how rapidly things can change in the bacon market, where the present price for bacon pigs is very satisfactory.

Mr. Willey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the replies to which he referred were regarded by those who received them as wholly unsatisfactory? In any case, is not this only one part of the problem? When will he promote discussions about orderly marketing for pigs generally?

Mr. Godber: That is opening up a much wider subject. As the hon. Member knows, the Bosanquet Commission looked into this very fully, and it is open to the Pig Industry Development Authority to give further study to it.

Butter

Mr. Darling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what inquiries have been made by his Department or any other organisation for which he is responsible into the reasons for the low consumption of butter, compared with pre-war purchases; and with what results.

Mr. Godber: No official inquiries have been made into this matter. Butter consumption, although still below the prewar level, has increased substantially since de-rationing, particularly in the last two years.

Mr. Darling: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the best way to help farmers at present is to give them a larger market and somehow to make it possible for the people of this country to eat more meat and dairy produce, and that the best way to do that is to see that they have decent wages and good purchasing power?

Mr. Godber: The consumption of both meat and dairy products has risen very rapidly indeed since hon. Members opposite left office.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Widows

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will increase the permitted earnings limit for widowed mothers.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): No, Sir. I have no proposals on this matter at present.

Mrs. Jeger: Is it not unfair and outrageous that if a widowed mother earns as little as £6 a week she loses £2 10s. of her pension, whereas a married woman whose husband is alive can earn up to £180 a year without suffering any deduction for Income Tax purposes? Surely there is a very strong case for locking at this matter again?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady will appreciate that the limit applies only to the widowed mother's own personal element and not the element for her child, and that the limit is now a good


deal higher than it was in the earlier days of the scheme, having been raised as recently as 1956.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Has the Minister been made aware of the very constructive and interesting suggestion made at a recent meeting of the National Council of Women, in Manchester, that this allowance should now be renamed the "guardian's allowance," enabling us to give recognition to the position of the mother as breadwinner and placing her in a category where the earnings rule need not apply? Will the Minister consider that very important suggestion made by that council?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I read a report of the meeting to which the hon. Member refers. The acceptance of that suggestion—which I am sure was most sincerely and helpfully put forward—would involve a complete revision of one part of the main structure of the National Insurance Scheme. The hon. Member will hear in mind the fact that the limits themselves have been raised and are now very substantially higher than they were wren the scheme began.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that a growing body of opinion considers that the basis of the regulations as they affect widowed mothers could very well be changed, because they do not seem to make sense and are doing grave injustice to people who are having a very hard time trying to bring up their children?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are strong arguments both for and against this limitation, and they are a little difficult to argue with the necessary brevity at Question Time.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many widowed mothers were summoned in the last convenient annual period for offences relating to statement of income.

Mr. Boyd - Carpenter: Eighty-six women in receipt of widowed mother's allowance were summoned for false declarations of earnings during 1957 in the whole of Great Britain.

Mrs. Jeger: I am glad to note that the figure is substantially less than that quoted at the recent conference of the National Council of Women, but does not the Minister agree that a serious

temptation is put in the way of these harassed women? Why should a widowed mother have deductions made from her earnings, whereas another widowed mother who is fortunate enough to have a small unearned private income, left to her by her hsuband or from some other source, suffers no deduction of Income Tax in respect of that unearned income?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad to have the opportunity of showing that the figure quoted in Manchester is quite out of relation with the true facts of the situation. The second part of the hon. Lady's question raises a matter which, as I said just now, it is a little difficult to debate constructively at Question Time.

Contribution Cards (Printing)

Sir J. Crowder: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why the insurance cards which date from 3rd March, 1958, are being issued without any correction of the old weekly rates of contributions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The printing of the 7 million contribution cards for issue in March, 1958, had already begun before Parliament, in November last, approved the Measure to increase the contribution rates; and it was neither practicable nor economical in the time then available to print fresh cards. Leaflets giving the correct rates were issued with the cards in March.

Sir J. Crowder: Will the Minister consider inserting the leaflets inside the cards and not putting them loose into the envelopes where they might not be seen by the recipients?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will note my hon. Friend's suggestion for a future occasion, but he will appreciate that when one is dealing with so very large a number of documents the staff costs and the time involved may be quite appreciable.

Benefits (Aliens)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance approximately what payments have been made in family allowances and other National Insurance benefits, respectively, since 1946, to members of the United


States forces and all other aliens, respectively, in the United Kingdom; and what corresponding benefits have been received by members of Her Majesty's Forces serving in the United States of America.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that, although United States Service men do not have to pay British Income Tax or any social insurance contributions, their wives are entitled to claim family allowances; how many wives are drawing these allowances; what is the total cost; and by what authority this procedure is permitted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that the detailed information asked for in the first part of Question No. 36 is not available. As, however, members of the United States forces do not pay National Insurance contributions they do not receive National Insurance benefits; and in view of the residence conditions for family allowances and the length of the normal tour of duty the number of those who qualify for these allowances cannot be substantial.
The second part of my hon. Friend's Question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. The answer to the last part of the Question of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) is the Family Allowances (Qualifications) Regulations, 1946.

Mr. Johnson: Cannot my right hon. Friend do a little more to help us to know whether we are getting a good bargain in regard to these reciprocal arrangements with other countries? Surely the House is entitled to know how much this is costing?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The question of reciprocal arrangements does not apply to the subject matter of my hon. Friend's Question, because we have no reciprocal arrangements with the United States of America. I shall be answering a Question about another reciprocal arrangement shortly. As to the main point of the supplementary question, I am endeavouring to ascertain the number involved, but the effect of the information that I have been able to get is that it is very limited.

Mr. Lewis: Has not the Minister's attention been drawn to reports that a number of wives of these Service men

are drawing £30 or £40 a week in Service pay and are, in addition, drawing 8s. a week family allowances? Photographs have appeared in the Press showing these ladies queuing for their family allowances. It seems very unfair to our own British boys, who are paying taxes, that these wives should receive family allowances while their husbands are earning three or four times as much in salaries.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the period of residence of an alien before he or she can qualify is three years, and as that is the normal tour of duty for American Service men in this country, in the majority of cases in which the wife of an American Service man receives this payment she is a British-born girl who has retained her British citizenship—as she can do—or, alternatively, even although she is now an alien, she has retained the right to draw the payment because, having been born and brought up here, she has lived here for more than three years.

Reciprocal Agreement (Norway)

Sir E. Errington: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether the reciprocal agreement on social security with Norway is yet in force.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad to be able to tell the House that the social security agreement with Norway, which was signed last year, has now been ratified and will come into force on 1st April. The agreement will cover the benefits provided by the schemes of National Insurance, Industrial Injuries insurance, family allowances and National Assistance in this country and the corresponding benefits in Norway. In addition, medical treatment will be available under Norwegian health insurance for all British nationals in Norway, including tourists.

Sir E. Errington: Can my right hon. Friend state whether any financial payment passes in connection with this matter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In both countries the payments are made to the nationals of the one country when they are in the other country. It is impossible to give a separate figure for the amount. It simply comes in the estimates for each social service of the particular country.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We are glad to have these reciprocal arrangements, but can the right hon. Gentleman help us by saying what countries are concerned? If he could show, in some appropriate form—perhaps the OFFICIAL REPORT would not be the right medium—the countries with which we already have reciprocal arrangements and those with which we have not, it would be interesting.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will gladly take such opportunity as may suggest itself to the right hon. Gentleman or myself to cause that information to be available, because I agree with him that it is of considerable interest, and a very satisfactory story.

Mr. Griffiths: Since it is very often important to tourists, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will indicate with what countries reciprocal arrangements exist in regard to the Health Service.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Off the cuff, I would say that we have reciprocal arrangements with Norway, and my recollection is that the Swedish agreement completely covers health. On the whole, health provisions are less frequent in these agreements than those for pensions and unemployment benefits. Perhaps the most satisfactory thing would be for the right hon. Gentleman to put down a Question, when I can give him a full answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Aliens (Medical Treatment)

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a dentist in the West Riding of Yorkshire, during the last 10 years, has treated patients under the Health Service from Turkey, Greece, China, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Iceland Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Yugoslavia. Germany, Holland, Poland, Switzerland, Palestine, Malta, Cyprus, Egypt, Eire, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Argentina, United States of America, France, the Rhodesias, Ghana, Nigeria and West Indies; and if he will take steps, in this and other similar cases, to obtain a refund of the cost of treatment from these countries with which Her Majesty's Government have no reciprocal agreement.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I am not aware of this individual case, nor of the precise significance of my hon. Friend's phrase "patients…from" the countries referred to. But in principle dental treatment under the National Health Service is available to all persons in this country subject to payment of the normal charges, and I have no power to recover from other Governments the cost of such treatment given to their nationals.

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: If I send the name and address of this Huddersfield dentist, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to work out accurately the cost of the dental treatment of these foreign nationals? Would he say whether he has any idea of what it would cost the British taxpayer for dental treatment given to foreign nationals in this country each year?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I shall be much obliged if my hon. Friend sends me details of this case. In looking at the list of the countries he has referred to, I can only point out that eleven are Commonwealth countries, two are countries with which we have reciprocal agreements, and some of them, like Latvia, Estonia and Poland, suggest to me—though I do not know the individual facts—that these patients may well be long-term refugees domiciled in this country, working here and paying taxes and contributions.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman resist any attempt made by hon. Members on his side of the House to crib and confine proper treatment of people who almost certainly have been working in this country for a considerable time?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have already said twice in this House that I welcome Questions enabling me to put these matters before the House in their proper perspective. Regarding this case, I welcome the opportunity my hon. Friend has been good enough to say that he will give me to look at what on the face of it appears to be an unusual case.

Mr. Bevan: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the most civilised course in this matter would be to extend the area of reciprocal agreement?

Mr. Walker-Smith: We are always anxious to extend the area of reciprocal agreement, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. In the case of the Health Service, the inhibiting factor is the absence of fully corresponding arrangements in countries overseas.

Mr. J. Eden: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any machinery to check abuses of this service by residents from countries other than the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Regarding immigration arrangements, the National Health Service aspect is looked at, but I ask my hon. Friend to believe that there is no evidence of any wide-scale abuse of these arrangements, and that against the possibility of taking any action we have to weigh the serious inconvenience to which it would expose British residents.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he will now arrange for the annual compilation and publication of statistics to show the value of treatment and other benefits under the National Health Service received by aliens.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think the value of such statistics would be such as to justify the effort and expenditure needed for their collection.

Mr. Johnson: While welcoming the reciprocal arrangements as much as anyone, I feel that the House should be in a position to know what sort of bargain we are getting. If it is difficult to get these statistics, could the Minister tell me on what basis he answered my supplementary question a week ago when he said:
…our best estimate of the cost leads me to suppose that it is negligible…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1958; Vol. 584, c. 16.]
If no statistics are available, how did he estimate the cost?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It has always been clear that the estimates made are rough estimates based on the number of aliens coming to this country, and the best estimate we can make of their use of the Service. To get the precise cost for which my hon. Friend asks, it would be necessary to ask hospitals, doctors, dentists, opticians and so on, first, to find which of their patients were aliens, and then to keep a separate record of the

treatment of these patients, and finally, to make a separate record of the cost of such treatment.

"Persomnia"

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the growing feeling in medical circles that "Persomnia" should not be on free sale across the counter but only on the prescription of a registered medical practitioner; what official reports he has received regarding it; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am aware of the publicity that has been given to this preparation and of its alleged abuse in certain cases. I have no official reports upon it, but I am consulting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to whether a further reference to the Poisons Board of bromvaletone and carbromal, the principal ingredients concerned, would be desirable in the light of such general information as is now available.

Mr. Rankin: May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that information and tell him that I am quite prepared to wait a little? If I put down another question, will he give us the benefit of his inquiry?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to keep in touch with me.

Sir H. Linstead: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is one of a number of medicines of the same class which, if my memory serves me, got what I might call a clean bill of health some years ago from the Poisons Board? Is it not therefore desirable that we should not damn one particular drug without proper inquiry, particularly in relation to others which are precisely similar?

Tranquillisers

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give an estimate of the total cost of the National Health Service of the prescription of tranquillisers.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Tranquillisers do not fall into any definite therapeutic class of drugs and I regret that in the circumstances the information is not available.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the Minister feel it desirable that some estimate should be made in view of the anxieties expressed in medical circles about their extended use?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As I have pointed out, estimates are made of the main therapeutic classes of drugs, but this cannot be done for tranquillisers, because owing to the substantial differences in their nature and action they do not fall into a definite class. But the Poisons Board is reviewing the general question of the need for controlling the supply of drugs which may be harmful if taken in excess.

Oral Answers to Questions — RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT, LONDON (WINDSCALE ACCIDENT)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the unusually large amount of fission products in the air over London on the 11th and 12th October last was attributable to the accident at Windscale on 10th October.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
Following the Windscale accident, an increase in the level of radioactivity was detected in the area over London on 11th, 12th and 13th of October. This was well below anything that could be considered harmful. By 14th of October only the normal background radiation remained.

Mr. Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why this unpleasant fact was omitted from the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 8th November and also from the more detailed White Paper which he issued on that day? Why do we have to wait until there is a conference of the Royal Society of Health for this information to be disclosed to the public for the first time by the scientific officer of the London County Council?

Mr. Butler: In fact, I answered a Question on this subject on 10th February to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in which I gave exactly similar information as that given to the hon. Member today. I have read the accounts

of the meeting of the Royal Society of Health and of the scientists employed by the London County Council, and I have nothing to add to the information I gave either on 10th February or now.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO UNITED STATES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister why he proposes to visit President Eisenhower.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has received an invitation to visit De Pauw University in June, and will take the opportunity while he is in the United States of having general discussions at the President's invitation with him and the United States Secretary of State.

Mr. Hughes: As the right hon. Gentleman deputises so well for the Prime Minister, could not he persuade the Prime Minister to go to America a little earlier? Could not he advise the Prime Minister that there are 5 million unemployed in America and that he might help the President if he suggested that we have successfully solved our problem partially by having more trade with Russia and China? Could not he give that advice or information to help the American unemployment problem?

Mr. Butler: My general reply to the two parts of the hon. Member's supplementary question is that the Prime Minister knows very well how to mind his business and how to look after the business of the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Parkhurst Prison (Nurses)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the nursing staff in the hospital at Her Majesty's Prison, Parkhurst, Isle of Wight, have the qualification of State registered nurse; how many nursing warders are employed in the hospital; and what is the average wage, including allowances, of the State registered nurses and the nursing warders, respectively.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The staff of the hospital consists of a hospital chief officer, two hospital principal officers and 21 hospital officers of whom one is a State registered nurse. The weekly pay of the hospital officers, including allowances and the pensionable value of quarters and uniform, ranges from £12 2s. 6d. to £14 16s. 6d. according to length of service. The State registered nurse qualification does not affect the pay.

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his answer means that this 65-bed hospital is run by one State registered nurse, ably interfered with by 21 nursing warders, who are former punishment officers who have been given a short course as medical orderlies? As his answer also means that these orderlies are getting higher salaries than is the State registered nurse, is it not a waste of public money? Is there any reason why the very fine efforts of the medical staff at this hospital should be to a large extent nullified by inefficient nursing?

Mr. Renton: The hospital officers all have some nursing training before they are appointed to these duties. It has to be remembered that a large proportion of these persons who go into prison hospitals are people who, if they were not in prison, would not be in ordinary hospitals but would be nursed at home, and that serious cases are sent as a rule to outside hospitals.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I should like, with permission, to make a personal statement.
In answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), on 6th March, I said that egg whisks were only subject to Purchase Tax if they were less than 12 inches long. This was perfectly correct, but in answer to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend I inadvertently contradicted this, when I said that the egg whisks used by housewives, by which, as I explained, I meant those under 12 inches long, were not subject to Purchase Tax.
I should like to express my regret for any misundertsanding I may have caused by this mistake in my supplementary answer.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A personal statement is not debatable.

PARTY MEETINGS (PALACE OF WESTMINSTER)

Mr. Lewis: I desire to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a matter of great urgency and, I think, of great importance. I wish to ask you whether or not it is a matter of Privilege or something on which you could advise and guide the House.
During the weekend, in most of the reputable newspapers including the Sunday Express, there was an article which said—and I quote from the Sunday Express:
M.P.s hunt for man behind the Tory leaks. Commons searched for hidden mikes.
Then it goes on to say:
Two rooms in the House of Commons have been searched for hidden microphones. The search was part of an intensive effort to solve the mystery of how accurate verbatim accounts of secret Tory meetings have reached the Press".
It also says:
Room Number 14 was given the most thorough examination of all, after certain M.P.s had put forward the theory that it might be wired with a microphone capable of relaying the discussion to other parts of the building.
I see that you have a copy of the newspaper there, Mr. Speaker. You will see further down the column that not only are the Whips furious about this, but that Ministers are now getting to the stage where they cannot give any confidential information to the 1922 Committee.
I know that you have previously ruled on the question of party meetings upstairs not being subject to Privilege, but this is a different question, because statements are made in this newspaper that Committee rooms have been wired for microphones. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. This is very serious. This is what we read of in the police State. I should like to know whether we can do anything to have an investigation made. It says in the newspaper——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is either raising this as a matter of Privilege and asking me to give priority to it over the Orders of the Day, or there is no subject for his speech at all.

Mr. Lewis: If you recollect, Mr. Speaker, I said I would like your advice and guidance as to what method——

Mr. Speaker: I do not give advice on all sorts of subjects which do not concern me. When the newspaper was brought to me during Questions I thought that the hon. Member was to raise a point of Privilege. I would ask him to confine himself to the matter of Privilege.

Mr. Lewis: What I wanted to get from you, Mr. Speaker, was the method by which we can raise this matter. I understand that party meetings in Committee rooms are not privileged. For someone to say that our Committee rooms have been wired for microphones, that officials of the House have been investigating and searching, and that every hon. Member is under suspicion, is surely a breach of Privilege. When a newspaper insinuates that most Government supporters are guilty of betraying the secrets not only of——

Mr. Speaker: I cannot see any point of Privilege in this matter at all. If the hon. Member wishes to probe further into this story about microphones he ought to put down a Question to the responsible Minister. It is a matter for him and not for me. If the hon. Member still persists that this is a matter of Privilege he can put down a Motion to that effect. I am bound to say that the hon. Member has disclosed nothing at all which would enable me to regard it as a prima facie case where I ought to give it precedence at this time.

Mr. M. Stewart: Could you enlighten us on one point, Mr. Speaker? We have

been informed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), who was quoting from the Press, that rooms in this building have been searched for microphones. Would it not be improper for such a search to be carried out without your authority and permission first having been required?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister generally responsible for work in this building is the Minister of Works. I know nothing about it. I do not think that it is a matter on which I could give priority at this time.

Mr. H. Morrison: If you have to consider this matter further, Mr. Speaker, will you take into account what is said in The Times today, that private meetings of hon. Members are a very convenient channel whereby Ministers can get additional publicity for what they want to say and for which otherwise they would not get any publicity at all?

Mr. Rawlinson: Would you take also note of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that very many hon. Members are thoroughly sick of this type of matter being raised as a point of order?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this Day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Heath.]

Proceedings on the Nationalised Industries Loans Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Heath.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [13th March]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1957–58; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1958–59; NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1957–58; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1958–59; AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59; AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58; CIVIL ESTIMATES, AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1957–58; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58; CIVIL (EXCESS), 1956–57; NAVY (EXCESSES), 1956–57.

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1957–58

CLASS III

VOTE 1. HOME OFFICE

1. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,359,875, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958. for the salaries and expenses of the office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and subordinate offices; grants towards the expenses of the probation of offenders, of magistrates' courts and of school crossing patrols; certain grants in aid: and sundry other services.

Orders of the Day — VOTE 6. FIRE SERVICES, ENGLAND AND WALES

2 That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £168,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for expenses in connection with the fire services in England and Wales, including the cost of inspection and training, and grants in respect of expenditure incurred by fire authorities; for certain superannuation and other expenses; and for remanet expenditure in connection with the National Fire Service, England and Wales.

Orders of the Day — CLASS V

VOTE 5. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES

3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,428,720, be granted to Her Majesty, to

defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, &c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including a grant in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &c., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

VOTE 11. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND

4. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,561,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services.

Orders of the Day — CLASS II

VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES.

5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £553,310, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for sundry grants and services connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service, including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1958–59

VOTE 1. PAY, &C., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES

6. That a sum, not exceeding £68,167,000, be granted to Her Majesty. to defray the expense of the pay. etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

VOTE 2. VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY

7 That a sum, not exceding £13,026,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

VOTE 6. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES

8. That a sum, not exceeding £17,099,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydro-graphic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD

9. That a sum, not exceeding £12,603,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1959.

VOTE 11. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

10. That a sum, not exceeding £9,521,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1959.

VOTE 13. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

11. That a sum, not exceeding £25,172,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1959.

VOTE 14. MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR

12. That a sum, not exceeding £16,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Directorate of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs and of certain miscellaneous expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1959.

VOTE 15. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

13. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1959.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58

14. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1958, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

Schedule



Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote
£
£


1. Pay, &amp;c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
Cr. 450,000
100,000


2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
1,025,000
*-425,000


4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services
300,000
—


6. Scientific Services
Cr. 400,000
250,000


8. Shipbuilding, Repairs and Maintenance, &amp;c.—


Section I—Personnel
1,625,000
250,000


Section II—Matériel
11,000,000
*-5,400,000


Section III—Contract Work
19,500,000
*-4,000,000


9. Naval Armaments
Cr. 100,000
*-175,000


10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
Cr. 1,750,000
450,000


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
1,150,000
*-550,000


12. Admiralty Office
300,000
—


13. Non-Effective Services
2,800,000
—


Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1957–58 £
35,000,000
*-9,500,000


* Deficit.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1958–59

VOTE 1. PAY, &C., OF THE ARMY

15 That a sum, not exceeding £98,220,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1959.

Orders of the Day — VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY AND CADET FORCES

16. That a sum, not exceeding £15,990,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 387,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 375,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 274,800, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1959.

Orders of the Day — VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS

17. That a sum, not exceeding £26,830,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1959.

Orders of the Day — VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

18. That a sum, not exceeding £5,380,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Orders of the Day — VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

19. That a sum, not exceeding £34,470,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Orders of the Day — VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

20. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Orders of the Day — AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59

VOTE 1. PAY, &C., OF THE AIR FORCE

21. That a sum not exceeding £101,910,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

22. That a sum, not exceeding £1,379,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 215,000, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 5,000, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59

23. That a sum, not exceeding £233,120,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:



£


7. Aircraft and Stores
196,800,000


8. Works and Lands
31,450,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
4,870,000


11. Additional Married Quarters
100



£233,120,100

Orders of the Day — AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58

24. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of paymen during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

Schedule



Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote
£
£


1. Pay, &amp;c, of the Air Force
Cr. 90,000
*-50,000


2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services
Cr. 270,000
*-80,000


3. Air Ministry
420,000
—


4. Civilians at Out-stations
1,890,000
*-710,000


5. Movements
Cr. 250,000
1,340,000


6. Supplies
Cr. 690,000
570,000


7. Aircraft and Stores
750,000
1,250,000


8. Works and Lands
Cr.6,720,000
*-4,000,000


10. Non-effective Services
4,960,010
—


11. Additional Married Quarters
—
*-500,000


Total Air (Supplementary) 1957–58 £
10
*-2,180,000


* Deficit.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLE MENTARY ESTMATES, 1957–58

25. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £58,317,167, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—


CIVIL ESTIMATES


CLASS I



£


1. House of Lords
1,167


2. House of Commons
12,710


4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
148,000


6. Charity Commission
487


7. Civil Service Commission
23,040


8. Exchequer and Audit Department
8,000


12. Government Hospitality
8,500


14. National Debt Office
10


16. Public Record Office
10


18. Royal Commissions, etc.
6,500


20. Silver
425


22. Miscellaneous Expenses
10


23. Scottish Home Department
10


24. Scottish Record Office
10

CLASS II



£


1. Foreign Service
10


3. British Council
75,000


4. Commonwealth Relations Office
138,000


5. Commonwealth Services
10


7. Colonial Office
86,641


8. Colonial Services
5,878,502

REVENUE DEPARTMANTS


1. Customs and Excise
369,200


3. Post Office (Revised sum)
17,615,000



£58,317,167

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58

26. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL (EXCESS), 1956–57

27. That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grant for National Assistance Board for the year ended on the 31st day of March. 1957.

Class and Vote
Excess of Expenditure over Estimate
Appropriations in Aid
Excess Vote



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Class X



5. National Assistance Board
33,581
3
1
33,571
3
1
10
0
0


Total. Civil (Excess)
10
0
0

Orders of the Day — NAVY (EXCESSES), 1956–57

28. That a sum, not exceeding £469,975 15s. 0d., be granted to Her 
Majesty, to make good excesses on the grants for Navy Services for the year ended on the 31st 
day of March, 1957.


Schedule


No. of Vote
Navy Services 1956–57 Vote
DEFICITS
SURPLUSES


Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure
Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts
Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure
Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, &amp;c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
—
—
1,027,815
19
10
158,815
13
7


2
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
676,261
54
—
—
478,677
1
5


3
Medical Establishments and Services
8,049
11
6
—
—
12,168
19
8


4
Civilians employed on Fleet Services
28,511
15
3
—
—
5,168
4
2


5
Educational Services
—
—
45,875
3
8
10,455
0
7


6
Scientific Services
—
—
942,573
17
6
24,991
19
5


7
Royal Naval Reserves
—
—
38,376
3
5
927
3
8


8
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &amp;c:



Section I.—



Personnel
—
168,125
6
8
46,525
9
5
—



Section II.—



Matériel
802,479
4
11
—
—
484,426
18
3



Section III.—



Contract Work
1,143,861
9
8
1,278,379
13
5
—
—


9
Naval Armaments
—
366,053
17
9
512,657
12
7
—


10
Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
—
—
268,901
2
3
4,108
15
9


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services
—
318,720
14
8
63,666
17
11
—


12
Admiralty Office
—
—
38,115
6
1
17,433
4
4


13
Non-Effective Services
—
—
99,454
16
8
54,277
11
7


14
Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair
2,100
16
3
—
—
—


15
Additional Married Quarters
9,037
13
8
—
—
—



Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned
3,807
7
8
—
—
—




2,674,109
4
3
2,131,279
12
6
3,083,962
9
4
1,251,450
12
5



Excess Vote
—
—
469,975
15
0
—



2,674,109
4
3
2,131,279
12
6
3,553,938
4
4
1,251,450
12
5



£4,805,388 16 9
£4,805,388 16 9


First Resolution read a Second time.


Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — PROBATION SERVICE

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In calling attention to Subhead B.I of the Home Office Vote and asking a number of questions of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to elucidate why the Home Office needs this additional sum, I hope that it will not be assumed that we are criticising probation officers or questioning the value of the probation service.
The speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) made in the Adjournment debate on Thursday night last must have removed any doubt as to the warm regard that this House has for the probation officers, and for the service as a whole. As a juvenile court magistrate, I know very well the devoted service that these officers give and like, I think, other magistrates, I constantly find myself wondering how the courts could work properly without the probation officer helping the deserted wife, accepting responsibility for the adult casualties of our social system, and taking charge of young people who are too great a problem for their parents.
All of us, I think, would endorse the words used by the Home Secretary in May, 1957, when he addressed the conference of the National Association of Probation Officers on the fiftieth anniversary of the passage of Lord Samuel's original Measure, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, which set up the probation service. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said:
All concerned—the courts, the Probation Service itself and the Home Office—are satisfied that the probation method of treatment is an indispensable part of our social and judicial system…
We have travelled a long way, Mr. Speaker, from the old police court missionary days, when the missionaries were paid for largely out of charity. All of us rejoice at the progress that has been made, but in at least one respect those old days have left their effect. Recently, Mr. Dawtry, the General Secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, in a letter to me, used these words:
The early days of patronage have left their mark and it is still common to find references to the vocational nature of the probation

officer's work, which is true enough for it could not be undertaken without a sense of vocation; but it is no longer right for vocation to be regarded as a substitute for a living salary.
The Vote to which I wish especially to direct the attention of the House is Subhead B.1, and the information that it gives is not as full as one could wish. It is to make additional provision
…to meet increases in salaries, and in maintenance costs of official accommodation, &amp;c.; partly offset by savings on other items.
There is no indication of what is meant by &c. ", and the three words," increases in salaries," are not as informative as we would like them to be. Also on the same page, on the same Vote, and under Subhead A.1 the words used are "increases in remuneration." In Vote 3, Subhead E.1, the same words, "increases in remuneration", are used, and in Vote 4, subhead A.1, these words are used:
Additional provision required for revised scales of pay.
It might, perhaps, be as well if, on future occasions, the Home Office were, as it were, to systematise its choice of words, so that we could know exactly what is involved in the various subheads that we are asked to consider. As this one is to meet "increases in salaries", I think that it is right to assume that the increase arises partly from an increase in the number of probation officers employed, partly from an extension of their functions and an increase in their case load, and partly from higher salaries that are being paid to individual officers.
I would, first, direct attention to the salaries that probation officers are receiving. In the period under review, there was an increase that is, no doubt, covered by this Vote. It may be of help if I remind hon. Members that the salaries of probation officers are negotiated by a joint negotiating committee, which held its first meeting in 1950. The employer's side of the joint negotiating committee consists of four representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations, four from the County Councils' Association, three from the Magistrates' Association, and two from the Home Office. The staff side is represented by eight members of the National Association of Probation Officers.
In April, 1956, the Association asked for a comprehensive review of the salaries of all probation officers. That claim was not considered until August, 1956, and


on that occasion it was deferred so that a detailed claim could be submitted. That detailed claim was submitted, and was considered in November, 1956; but in January, 1957, the claim was rejected, and a 2½ per cent. increase was offered. That was not acceptable to the Association.
By general agreement, the claim then went to the Industrial Court, but the claim that was sent forward was limited to ordinary probation officers. In other words, at that stage, senior and principal probation officers were excluded from the Court's terms of reference, but it was agreed between the employers and the staff side that the Joint Negotiating Committee should resume discussion of the salaries of those officers in the light of the decision of the Industrial Court.
The Court finally made an award increasing the minimum salaries of probation officers from £485 to £575 a year, and increasing their maximum salaries from £795 to £860. That £860 is the maximum salary that the vast majority of probation officers can hope to receive. After that award had been made, the employers in the Joint Negotiating Committee were most helpful. They agreed to a shorter scale and to larger increments, thus making the service rather more attractive than would otherwise have been the case.
After that award had been made, negotiations were resumed in respect of senior and principal probation officers, but those negotiations were not completed until October of last year. By that time, compromise had been reached on increases of approximately 10 per cent. in the pay of these two senior grades. That recommendation of the Joint Negotiating Committee went to the Home Secretary on 16th October. On 20th December, as no decision had been communicated by the Home Secretary, I put down a Written Question to him which he answered saying that he was not yet in a position to make a statement.
It was not until 30th January this year that the Home Secretary published his decision. He said that he could not accept the recommendation of the Joint Negotiating Committee, but proposed, instead, to give increases of 8·2 per cent., which would be back-dated to 1st January, 1957. That meant that instead

of a 10 per cent. increase, the increase which the Home Secretary approved was only 8·2 per cent., which would result in a saving to public funds of about £4,500 a year.
Upon that decision of the Home Secretary the Observer commented:
It will affect the morale and recruiting prospects of a Service which even now is seriously below strength…This is not only a niggardly ruling, but false economy.
I hope that, even at this stage, the Home Secretary will find it possible to take a more generous view of a service which has rendered considerable public benefit. I know that discussions are still proceeding.
I do not think I can go further into that without transgressing the rules of order, but I think it is true to say that it is, at any rate, partly to pay for those two increases that this Vote is necessary today.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Could my hon. Friend tell me what is the present top salary, with the 8½ per cent. increase?

Mr. Greenwood: The salary of a principal probation officer varies from area to area. In an area with a population up to 300,000 the maximum salary, I understand, is £1,135 a year. In an area with a population between 1¼ million and 2¼ million the maximum is £1,565 a year. In London, the maximum is £1,730 a year. I have the details here if my hon. and learned Friend would like to see them.
Before I turn to the question of numbers, I want to touch upon the growth of the case load which probation officers are carrying and also the extension of their functions, because those are two factors which were taken into account by the Industrial Court when it presented its Report, No. 2648, on the probation service in May, 1957. I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State whether the increased expenditure which we are asked to vote is due to any considerable extent to these two factors of an increased case load and an extension of the functions of probation officers.
In an article which he wrote in the British Journal of Delinquency, a short time ago, Mr. Dawtry, to whom I have already referred, said:
Probation, once used 'for the simple or youthful offence, is now regarded as a form of


treatment for serious social problems where the work of well-trained case workers is required. Many of those placed on probation by the courts today are seriously disturbed people who need a long period of supervision and intensive case work, rather than simple friendship and guidance.
It is true that over the years the function of probation officers has gradually been extended. The Criminal Justice Act, 1948, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was responsible, led to the acceptance by probation officers of a statutory duty to undertake the after-care of certain classes of offender. Those classes were increased by the Probation (No. 2) Rules, 1952. It is interesting to note that 7,000 persons discharged from penal or training institutions are under the care of probation officers.
In the domestic field, about 75,000 actual or potential breakdowns of marriages are dealt with every year by officers in the probation service. Since 1952, probation officers have been attached to the divorce courts as court welfare officers, following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) is proposing greatly to extend this side of the probation officers' work by the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Bill. Last year the Home Secretary's Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders suggested in its Report, "Alternatives to Short Sentences of Imprisonment," that probation officers should be used more widely in social inquiries by courts. The Wolfenden Committee suggested a further extension of the probation officers' work.
We are, therefore, entitled to ask, when considering the Supplementary Estimate, what is the present case load which probation officers are carrying, whether it is increasing and whether the additional expenditure is in any way attributable to these factors.
I want to turn next to the numbers of probation officers who are employed. To some extent this increase in expenditure must be due to improved recruitment. About three weeks ago the Home Secretary gave a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras South (Mrs. L. Jeger) in which he said that there are now 1,388 officers employed; 33 of them are temporary and

54 of them are part-time. The Home Secretary said that the present vacancies are, therefore, between 70 and 80. He went on:
When these vacancies are filled, as I hope they may be within the next year or two, the Service should be well equipped to meet the demands made upon it by a progressive policy of penal reform."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February. 1958; Vol. 582, c. 81.]
We welcome that pronouncement by the Home Secretary. It is the view of many people, including some hon. Members, that the establishment which the Home Secretary is considering is too low and that even if the establishment were completely filled——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going a little wide of the Supplementary Estimate.
This is one of the difficulties which we encounter in a debate on a Supplementary Estimate of a relatively minor character compared with the total sum which has already been voted. The rule is that one can discuss only the causes which have led to the increase before the House at the moment.
The general policy of probation, in so far as it was covered by the previous Vote to which this is a Supplementary Vote, would not be in order on the Supplementary Estimate. I am prepared to allow as much latitude as I can, but I am bound to ask hon. Members to maintain the rule in Supply.

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate the Ruling which you have given, Mr. Speaker. It seemed to me that the additional expenditure in the Supplementary Estimate is called for either by increased salaries to the same number of probation officers or the payment of salary to an increased number of officers, and I was trying to direct the attention of the House to the question of the numbers employed and the extent to which they have increased over the last year.
I am most grateful for the guidance which you have given me, Sir, and perhaps I might round off the point by saying that whatever the truth of the increase in the number of probation officers over the past year, and whether the establishment provided by the Home Office is adequate, many probation officers are


overworked and many districts are understaffed. Certain proposals are being made at the moment, especially in Lancashire, which, in the view of many of us, are of very dubious value.
The number of probation officers who will benefit from this Supplementary Estimate is that given by the Home Secretary, but I believe that to some extent the shortage of probation officers is disguised by the figures which the Home Secretary has given. Some of them are temporary officers and, much more serious, in some cases probation committees have been forced to employ untrained people and have even been advised by the Home Secretary to take on as probation officers people who have not received the normal training which probation officers obtain.
I should like to tell the House of the experience of some probation committees in this respect. One committee in Lancashire, for example, advertised on five occasions and had only one applicant for the post. Another, in Lincolnshire, spent £85 on advertising, without any useful response. Presumably, some part of the Supplementary Estimate must cover the cost of probation committees advertising for the staff they require. Some areas also have had unfilled vacancies for many months, and in others the Ministry of Labour is sending along likely candidates from its books. The relevance of this is that such appointments are usually followed by some training, but not the full training which a normal entrant receives. I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to what extent this increased sum is being paid to men and women who have little or no training in the sense in which the probation service normally tinder-stands it.
I should have liked to discuss the question of setting up a committee to review the work of the probation service, but I think that that would be out of order. I shall conclude, therefore, by saying that, because we set such high store by the work of the probation service and the quality of its officers, we shall not oppose the granting of this additional sum of money. We believe that the claim for a committee to review the service should be met and that the decision of the joint negotiating committee should be honoured by the Home Secretary.
I will end by quoting the words of the Home Secretary in the Sunday Times yesterday:
The successful treatment of all offenders—especially juvenile offenders—depends in the last resort on the individuals who select and carry out the treatment. Unless the juvenile courts are composed of men and women who combine commonsense and imagination, sympathy with the young and an insight into their problems, the difficult individual judgment which each case requires will not be wisely made. Similarly, when treatment has been settled it is on the individual probation officer, the individual approved school master and all the others who share this responsible duty that we rely to see that it is given with understanding and firmness.
We ask a great deal of all these people. Frustration and disappointment can so easily damp enthusiasm.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. E. Partridge: I shall find it a little difficult to keep within order, Mr. Speaker, after your Ruling, but this much can be said, I think: that at least half of the time taken by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) was devoted to the remuneration of probation officers. If one is to judge by the length of time he spent upon it, one must conclude that he puts an undue emphasis on an aspect of the service for which the probation officers, I think, will not thank him. Naturally, they must have sufficient money for their needs, but their primary concern is not, in my experience, for an increase in their own salaries. It is unfortunate that this additional Vote should have been dealt with by the hon. Member for Rossendale in that way.
I take of the service as a whole a view rather different from that taken by the hon. Member for Rossendale. Perhaps I may be able to say a little more than would otherwise be allowed if I say, first, that the fruits of the work of this service cannot be measured in terms of money. The work done is psychological, there being no standard by which it may be measured in £ s. d., although one is quite sure any money which is spent pays handsome dividends. Because one cannot measure the work in terms of money, I hope that you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to put the suggestion to my hon. and learned Friend that an inquiry into the service is due now.
The money which is spent on the service and required by this additional Vote should be spent in such a way that the


greatest benefit is derived from it and the officers in the service are able to give of their best. Although the hon. Member for Rossendale found himself inhibited from asking for the inquiry, I hope that you will allow me to propound that suggestion to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman can direct the subject to the Supplementary Estimate which is before us, he will be in order; but I do not see how he can.

Mr. Partridge: This Supplementary Estimate is required to meet
increases in salaries, and in maintenance costs of official accommodation, &amp;c.
In so far as it applied to increases in salaries, one could advance one argument, but in so far as it related to maintenance costs of official accommodation, one could advance an entirely different argument. It is to ensure that we have the right balance between the two that I ask that a Departmental committee should be set up. I hope that you will say, Sir, that I am in order in propounding that point to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone as far as he safely may.

Mr. Partridge: That is excellent, Mr. Speaker. I have propounded it, and it is on the record.
Before I get into deeper water, I will content myself with saying that this is a service which all those who have anything to do with the recipients and beneficiaries of its wise counsel and guidance must have very dear to their hearts. We do not begrudge this additional sum which is asked for, and we hope that the service will go from strength to strength.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: The service we are discussing is now celebrating its fiftieth year of life. I was hoping to put a "new look" upon the service in the course of my remarks, but I can do so, apparently, only by endorsing that which should not have been said by the hon. Member for Battersea. South (Mr. Partridge).

Mr. Barnett Janner: On a point of order, if my hon.

and learned Friend will forgive me. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what may or may not be raised here? In page 54 of the Estimate we are told that the money is required
to meet increases in salaries, and in maintenance costs of official accommodation, &amp;c.
Surely, Sir, as there is nothing defined in the "&c.", the debate might range fairly widely. We have no information at all as to the details of the £90,000 required.
In the circumstances, many of us who wish to speak on the probation service will be obliged, if not now, later, to refer to the details and ask what the £90,000 is for. In the meantime, the question may be asked whether it is required for something other than what may be described later. If I may say so with respect, we should be entitled to speak on this service on more general terms. It is a matter of great importance and of considerable interest.

Mr. Speaker: Frankly, I am construing the words "&c." in the way that members of the hon. Member's profession would call, I believe, sui generis, or whatever it is—meaning things of the same sort. I do not see how the letters signifying "&c." would allow the hon. Member to range over the whole service.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: Further to that point of order. I say this with great hesitation, Mr. Speaker, but do you not mean ejusden generis and not sui generis?

Mr. Speaker: It is so long since I was acquainted with matters of this kind. I was taking the phrase as meaning things like salaries and accommodation.

Mr. Janner: I appreciate that, Sir. There are many subjects with which one could deal, and the general aspect, as you know, Mr. Speaker, from your own personal information, with regard to the probation service would, in my view, and, I respectfully hope, in your view, permit fairly general discussion because the question of salaries is bound up with the work of the probation officers themselves, the possibilities of that work and the service as a whole. If that were not so, how could one examine the question whether the additional salaries should be granted or not? It may be that the Home Office, instead of adopting these


salaries for a purpose which is desirable, may have decided that the money should be used for another purpose entirely.

Mr. Speaker: I was relying on the old practice in Supply which is set out in the latest edition of Erskine May, in page 738, where it is stated:
If the sum demanded by a supplementary estimate is of the same order of magnitude as the original estimate, the chairman has allowed questions of policy to be raised upon it which would have been in order if it had been an original estimate; but if the supplementary estimate is merely to provide additional funds of a relatively moderate amount required in the normal course of working of the services for which the original vote was demanded, only the reasons for the increase can be discussed and not the policy implied in the service which must be taken to have been settled by the original vote.
That is the position. I have no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman looks at the supplementary sum asked for, and compares it with the original sum which was voted, he will see that I could not rule that this supplementary sum is anything like the original sum.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, North West (Mr. Janner) for his intervention. But I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will give me as much latitude as is possible within the rules of order. I was remarking that, although I was hoping to put a "new look" upon the service, I had had the benefit of the hon. Member for Battersea, South having communicated his views before it appeared that he was out of order.
There are many things which are in order on this Vote relating to salaries. I assume that what the salaries are and what the increase should be are matters which are in order. It is interesting to note that in the twenty-two years after the service was founded there were no less than three Departmental committees. In the last twenty-four years there has not been a Departmental committee at all. It is in relation to salaries that the advice of the new Departmental committee would be of the utmost value.
These salaries relate to men who have been in the service for many years. In the early years, as we have been reminded, the service was carried out almost entirely by untrained voluntary workers and they were paid so much per head per case. From that beginning,

the service has grown into what I would suggest is a great social service now comparable with the Health Service, functioning in a field where the casualties are great and where the need of help is also great. These are not the casualties that we deal with under the Health Service, but are all social casualties. Very important work is being done by the probation officers.
In 1922, it was said by the then Departmental committee that it was doubtful whether the service would attract candidates with a university education. When the service had been in existence for another fourteen years, in 1936, the Departmental committee which recommended the adoption of a training board not only changed the whole approach, but regarded a university training as essential. Perhaps the word "desirable" was used, but I am not sure on that point. In any case, there was a change of outlook.
Let me take, as an example, a salary about which I know, in a town where I have something to do with the probation service. The senior officer there, although senior in the department, is not graded as a senior officer. He is a lower grade senior officer and the total remuneration that he can receive is £865. That is for a man in a large Lancashire town who is working not a normal working day, but every evening, all day Saturday and all day Sunday. He does not regard this service as an ordinary piece of work, but as a vocation. I have seen his work, and I am very grateful for his work. I say without any hesitation that the members of this service are not being rewarded as they should be.
The increase which is asked for—I hope I am in order—should have been very much greater. I will not suggest to the Home Secretary that in giving 8·2 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. he was mean. That point could be argued. It is not a matter of adjusting the present salaries. They are all hopelessly wrong. We ought to make a completely new approach to these salaries. This can come only through a Departmental committee.
The other night the hon. and learned Gentleman, when challenged about this matter, said:
I must remind him that recruitment for training receives the special attention of the Probation Advisory and Training Board, which


is composed of magistrates, justices' clerks, and representatives of the universities and of the probation service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1958; Vol. 584, c. 779.]
I do not know whether he seriously intended that to be an answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle). He was asking for a completely new approach—not an approach by the body whose recommendations are based on the 1936 level.
In 1936, the probation service was considered. What was then thought, in view of the work that the probation officers did, was a reasonable salary level was fixed, and the salaries today are based on that 1936 review. There have been percentage increases during the war and cost of living bonuses, and these have been consolidated, but the whole fundamental basis of the approach to salaries is the 1936 approach. I am firmly of opinion that if we are to attract to the service the men we need, a totally new approach to salaries is essential.
I am told that one-third of the members of the probation service have some university training, but I am not sure what "university training" means. It is sometimes claimed that a person who gets a diploma, or half or even only one-quarter of a diploma, in social science has been university trained. Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary can tell us how many of these men have a university degree. I do not regard a person who takes a short evening course at a university as university trained in the sense that we require university trained men for the probation service. I should be interested to know how many of the existing 13,000 officers——

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): There are 1,300 officers.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I should like to know how many of the 1,300 officers at present employed have had a university training in the real sense of the word.
The answer given by the hon. and learned Gentleman on Thursday does not meet the point that we are trying to make on behalf of the probation service, because that merely referred back to a body whose ideas are fixed on the 1936 level plus increases. Since then, probation officers have had a wide range of new responsibilities put upon them. My

hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred to a number of onerous matters which have been put upon the probation service since those days, including the matrimonial conciliation service, involving 75,000 cases a year. Furthermore, the Wolfenden Report suggests that yet further duties should be placed upon probation officers, even in these difficult days.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suppose that the hon. and learned Member is now arguing about salaries.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is valid to make the general point that additional duties have been cast upon these officers with the passage of years, but I do not think it would be strictly in order to go in any detail into services such as matrimonial conciliation.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, to be able to deal with one item which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale omitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) is canvassing a Bill, to which I give warm support, whose purpose is to make of general application to adults the 1948 law that no young person should be sent to prison for a first offence unless no other remedy is available. This will represent yet another duty upon the probation officer.
I hope that my hon. Friend's Bill will be passed. When I sit in an official capacity, nothing shocks me more than to find somebody, whose criminal record by the time he comes before me is fairly long, who, from his very first offence, has been sent to prison. That means that the taint of prison is upon him and he goes back and back.
The real value to a judge, recorder or magistrate in having the probation service at his elbow is that he can keep people out of prison and free from the taint of prison. With the existing difficulty of getting adequate numbers of people for the service, we are inhibited from putting more work upon the probation officers. Knowing that instead of the 60 cases recommended as a case load, some of them are carrying 80 or 90 cases, one hesitates to put further burdens upon them.
It is useless to say that we have sufficient numbers of probation officers. Even when those under training are eventually added to the service—there are supposed to be about 70 or 80 coming in next year—no allowance is made for wastage. There is an almost equivalent wastage as a result of people leaving the service. If we do no more than make up the wastage each year, we shall not have the number of probation officers that we need.
I hope that we shall have an answer from the Home Office to the problem of recruitment and pay for this valuable service. It is much cheaper to the community to hand people over to the probation officer than to send them to prison. Probation is more valuable and is essentially cheaper. The more that we can extend probation successfully by having university trained officers, men of broad outlook and wide experience, the sooner we will be able to keep more people out of our prisons.
Section 77 (3) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 states that
There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament … towards the expenditure of any body or person approved by the Secretary of State in the conduct of research into the causes of delinquency and the treatment of offenders …
such money as the Treasury may allow. So far, in a period of ten years, I believe that only £100,000 has been paid out for research. I suggest that if we cannot have a Departmental committee, the Home Secretary might consider the possibility of using Section 77 to get full statistics and a full examination of the probation service by a research body.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that research is not included in the Supplementary Estimate. It is dealt with in an entirely different Estimate.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I rather suspected that, Mr. Speaker. I shall not try your patience any longer, but I hope that these observations will find warm acceptance by the Minister.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I am glad that there is agreement on both sides of the House that the probation service is a valuable organisation. I agree with most of what the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) has said and I

sympathise with his difficulties in trying to touch upon certain points which are on the borderline or outside the bounds of order. I am sorry that we cannot discuss the desirability of research, because that would throw light on the question of the case load with which probation officers have to deal in their daily duties.
We are all agreed about the value of the probation service. We are proud that this country has been a pioneer in this work. It is something that last year probation celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of its coming into existence in this country. As we know, probation grew out of the old system of binding over, and it was natural that in the early days supervision should have been carried out by the police court missionaries. Many of these men had a deep sense of vocation, but it is inevitable that as their work grew there should be an increasing need for skilled guidance, and especially for training in case-work and in the scientific side of the problems of human behaviour.
There emerged, therefore, this special kind of trained workers whom we call probation officers and whose duty, as defined by statute, is to supervise those put under their care and to advise and assist and befriend them. In other words, and this is an essential feature of probation, the service provides for a positive attempt at re-education without committing the offender to an institution. Even in the best of institutions, conditions are bound to be in some measure unnatural and the problems facing the inmates are not always those of the outside world.
The great merit of probation is that it leaves the delinquent in his ordinary environment. As the hon. and learned Member for Crewe has reminded us, probation is a much cheaper form of treatment than any institutional method, and it has been abundantly justified by the results. But a strain is now being put upon the service. There are at present about 60,000 men, women and juveniles under the supervision of probation officers. About half of that number are adults, and by no means all of them are first offenders. The service has grown immeasurably over the past 20 years. In 1936, it consisted of fewer than 400 officers, of whom only a handful had university training. Now there are nearly 1,400 officers, of whom many have had university training. Whether


the training has involved a degree or a diploma it certainly has been some form of higher education.
The additional duties which have been placed upon the probation officer in recent years include the after-care of ex-prisoners and Borstal inmates, and also the work of matrimonial reconciliation on which a great deal of time is spent. There is some doubt as to what is the actual average case load, but the figure that has been suggested, if we are to strike an average, is 60 cases for the male probation officer and 40 cases for the female probation officer. Whatever it is, there is no doubt that these men and women are working under considerable pressure, as the Home Secretary has recognised.
We have been told that the shortage of staff is between 70 and 80. That is the official figure given by the Home Secretary, but it is not in accordance with what Mr. Dawtry, the General Secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, has stated. He puts the shortage as between 100 and 200. Pay has improved compared with what it was in pre-war days, but the maximum basic pay for the probation officer, except in a few of the big areas, is still only £860 a year.
It should be remembered that the probation officer works long and irregular hours, including at least two or three evenings a week and also Saturdays and Sundays, in addition to the usual office hours, and there is no overtime or extra allowance
except for subsistence when unusually detained.
I believe that the senior and principal probation officers, whose cases have already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), have some cause for grievance at the reduction of the amount recommended by the Industrial Court. A sum of £4,500 a year is not very great when set against what it costs to maintain one or two boys in a Borstal institution.
In answer to a recent Question about vacancies in the probation service, the Home Secretary said:
When these vacancies are filled, as I hope they may be within the next year or two, the Service should be well equipped to meet the demands made upon it by a progressive policy

of penal reform."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 81.]
I certainly share my right hon. Friend's hope, but I do not think that the recruits are coming forward for the service in the numbers which I should like to see and which I think are desirable in the public interest and in the interest of the reduction of crime and the treatment of offenders.
Notwithstanding the fact that it is essentially a vocational service, I hope that steps will be taken to make the service a little more financially attractive. I hope that, at the same time, more will be done than has been done in the past to put over or to sell to the public the idea that probation work is a modern social service which is just as important in its way as the Health Service and other social services.
Finally. I should like to emphasise a point which has been touched upon already, namely, that with the present trend of policy in the courts in the imposition of sentences, more and more demands are likely to be made in the immediate future on the probation service. The First Offenders Bill, to which I was very glad to give my support, is now before the House and we have also the recommendations of the Home Office Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders, which must affect the work of the probation service. The existing probation officers cannot increase their present average case loads without impairing, perhaps seriously, the quality of the work when judged by results; and a good probation officer cannot be produced overnight. I think that the money represented in this Supplementary Estimate is well spent and will justify itself many times over by results.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: A few days ago I had the opportunity of raising the whole question of the probation service in a very general sense, even though the debate was limited to a short time on the Adjournment. This afternoon, therefore, I should like to do what I was not able to do the other night, try to concentrate on the question of the salaries of probation officers as laid down in the Supplementary Estimate now before the House.
In so doing, I want to argue that the sum mentioned in the Supplementary


Estimate is quite insufficient for the purpose of the probation service if it is to be as efficient as we want it to be. As has already been stated, the Joint Negotiating Committee which deals with the probation officer service has been looking at the question of salaries for a long time, and, after many months of deliberation, has come forward with recommendations.
The Home Secretary, in his wisdom, accepted the recommendation for what are called ordinary probation officers, but did not see fit to fully accept the recommendation for chief officers. He cut down the recommended increase of 10 per cent. to 8·2 per cent. I have said before, and I have no hesitation in saying again, that I regard this as a very mean action.
I know that, in answer to Questions, the Home Secretary at that time said that this was part of the Government's policy of economy, and that in view of rising costs it was necessary that great care should be taken when suggestions were made for increases of salary for anyone in the public service. This, in effect, was the Government's example to industry.
It seems to me to be completely ridiculous that the Home Office, to make a contribution to that policy, should deal with a sum of only £4,500, and, in so doing, I say without hesitation, insult a group of men and women who are doing a great job of work. It seems to me to be utterly ridiculous that a sum of only £4,500 is involved in the difference whether the full award is given or not.
Following the Home Secretary's decision on the award, the Manchester Guardian, on 31st January, in its leading article, said:
The Home Secretary has imposed what amounts to a collective fine on senior and principal officers in the probation service which amply merits the dignified protest that the general-secretary of their association made yesterday.
The leading article also says:
The Minister, through his Department, is represented by the official nominees on the negotiating committee; if, as in this case, they are outvoted, is it fair to upset a majority finding by edict? The Government is properly concerned to secure restraint in wage and salary increases, but to do so by dishonouring negotiated settlements strikes at the very root of

voluntary collective bargaining. What is the point of bargaining at all if the Government cannot be trusted to keep a bargain?
I am suggesting that nothing could be more niggardly than what has taken place so far as chief probation officers are concerned, and I would have liked to have seen a much higher figure in the Supplementary Estimates.
It is quite impossible to separate the question of salaries from that of recruitment. We shall not recruit an adequate probation service unless the salaries are a much greater attraction than those offered at present, and when one of the previous Departmental committees talked about university training and, in addition, training at the Home Office itself, it seems to be extraordinary that we should be thinking in terms of salaries as we know them at present.
It has been said several times from both sides of the House that the time has come when a Departmental committee should consider these matters. A Departmental committee would consider only the question of salaries, but the whole basis is wrong. I know from friends of mine who are members of the Joint Negotiating Committee that they themselves are completely dissatisfied with the basis. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) said, the increases which have taken place have been increases in bonuses because of the rise in the cost of living. We have now reached the stage when, with the tremendous increase which has taken place in the work of the probation officers, there has to be a completely new basis where their salaries are concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood), in answer to a question earlier, said that the chief probation officer in charge of an area with a population of 2½ million people can rise to a salary of only £1,560. In the light of these responsibilities, and of the work which such people are doing, I suggest that that figure is now out of tune with what we believe should be paid in the probation service.
In Lancashire, at present, a great deal of trouble has been aroused because the Home Office has introduced, or is proposing to introduce, a new system in the county whereby local probation committees will not have so much control over their own officers. That proposal


is entirely due to the fact that it is impossible to recruit sufficient probation officers to carry out the work in the county under the present system. I am submitting that if the salaries of probation officers were higher, recruitment would be better, and that the problem we see at the moment would not exist.
In answer to a question in debate recently the Joint Under-Secretary said that the Home Office envisaged an increase of between 70 to 80 probation officers. That is ridiculous in the light of the weight of work now put upon their shoulders, and I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman must think in very different terms altogether. Had the Home Office done so some months ago, we should not have been discussing £90,000 now; we should be discussing a figure very much higher indeed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. There is no room in the Supplementary Estimate for those who have not yet joined the service.

Mr. Royle: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I was using my last sentence in a retrospective way. I was hoping that, even with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I could have got away with it. I recognise the narrowness of this debate, and I realise that we can only discuss the question of salaries.
I shall not offend any further in that respect, but I very strongly support all that has been said this afternoon. The time has come when, seeing that we have not had one since 1936 and remembering the added burden since that time, a Departmental committee should be set up so that recruitment, and salaries, which are most important of all, shall be tackled on a new basis. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to give me a little more satisfaction today than he was able to give me the other night.

4.50 p.m.

Colonel Richard H. Glyn: Though I agree with a lot that has been said in the debate, I cannot agree with all of it. I yield to no one in my admiration for the work done by the probation service, and I strongly support the Supplementary Estimate, which will enable rather higher salaries to be paid. Goodness knows, I am sure that

they are earned. I quite agree that the probation service is as important as the Health Service, only it deals with social casualties as opposed to medical ones.
Before I came to the House I had been on a probation committee, and from my experience I am sure that the difficulties in the south of England are less than have been represented. It is not so long since my own county committee advertised for a probation officer, and I was struck not only by the number who applied for the post but by their high quality.
It has been said, quite rightly, that a university degree in social science is extremely desirable. On the other hand, I think that as far as probation workers are concerned it is absolutely essential that they should be people capable of winning the confidence of the offenders. That is absolutely necessary for, without that, they can achieve nothing.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware of a fact which is present in all kinds of applications for professional workers, namely, that it is much easier to get people to come to the south of England, which is pleasanter to live in than in the industrial North and that the industrial North experiences difficulties which do not exist in the South? For instance, the south of England is not under-doctored and, in the same way, not under-probation-officered.

Colonel Glyn: I have heard inhabitants of the north of England take a very contrary view to that and support their part of the country very strongly against the rival attractions of the South.
I am sure that these probation workers are dedicated men and women who do not count the halfpence. They are on call day and night, and they know that when they take the post.
It is not only a question of the case load. There are other considerations. There is, if I may so express it, the question of the difficulty of the cases referred to them. If for no other reason, they deserve an increase in salary, because I believe that they are getting more difficult cases today than they did in the past.
I wish particularly to stress the difficulty that arises from the cases of juveniles who are now so often referred


to probation workers. I saw the report of a probation officer on a case of this nature in which she referred to the juveniles concerned as being "like mad things. Once they have made up their minds to do something nothing will stop them." Of course, the difficulty is that the probation officer's duty is to stop them. That is what he or she is supposed to do.
This sort of case adds very greatly to the amount of work and difficulty of a probation worker. It counts as only one case, but it is much more difficult than any normal case. The difficulty involved in these juvenile cases is very great indeed. It is sometimes attributed to earlier maturity or to lack of discipline in the home. I believe that in the old days we were mostly brought up on the lines of "do as you would be done by" at our mother's knee, and, if that failed, of being "done by as you did" across our father's knee. I think that that system worked fairly well, but it seems to have broken down.
In a great number of cases which come before the courts, the magistrates have little option but to put the offenders on probation and to place them in the care of these devoted workers in the probation service who have the very thankless task of persuading these young people to rethink their whole way of life. Many of these convicted juveniles have got completely out of hand and have become well on the way to taking up criminal careers. No one but a probation officer can talk them out of this state of mind.
Probation officers have a very greatly increased pressure placed upon them today not only because of the increase in the case load, but because of the increased difficulty of some of the cases which they are asked to undertake. These people are doing wonderful work and have a surprisingly high proportion of successes. I have not seen the latest figures, but I know that in my own county the proportion of successes of the probation workers is really very creditable indeed. I think that the nation owes them a great debt of gratitude.
For all these reasons, I most warmly support the proposed increase in salaries which will be made possible by the Supplementary Estimate.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) reminded the House of the procedure which was adopted in reaching the agreement about the increases in salary for senior and principal probation officers which form the major part of this Supplementary Estimate. My hon. Friend also reminded the House of the constitution of the negotiating committee. I am bound to say that I have never felt very happy about its constitution and I rather wonder what was behind the Minister's decision not to accept the full award as made and to reduce it.
My hon. Friend further reminded the House that on what one might call the employer's side of the Joint Negotiating Committee there are representatives of the local authorities, of the Home Office and of the magistrates. The representatives of the magistrates are really the only people who have a direct knowledge of the actual work being done by probation officers. They are the only people who have practical knowledge of the work of the men and women whose duty it is to help and advise them in the difficult task that they have to discharge.
The magistrates who sit on the Joint Negotiating Committee are in a very difficult position. It looks as if they are not able to get all that they would like in the way of better conditions for the probation workers who, as we know, were in a hopeless minority on the committee. Therefore, the last thing I would expect would be that any award recommended by that committee would be too extravagant, and I am baffled to understand why the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to reduce the award in the way he did.
It seems that a recommendation put forward by people who have, at any rate to some extent, some knowledge of what is involved in the work of probation officers is being disregarded not on any real assessment of the work which they are doing, but on purely financial grounds. The whole thing seems to be a sort of shadowy dance which takes place when everyone knows that the real decision is to be taken not, one suspects, by the right hon. Gentleman, but by the Treasury, which is not even represented on the Joint Negotiating Committee.


That places the magistrates in a very embarrassing position because they are the people who have to bear the brunt of the heavy case loads, of the lack of the best-qualified officers and of the departure from the service of some of the most experienced people.
I have very little patience with people who manage to get high-souled about other people's vocations. It is always a very feeble argument to say that someone else ought to have a sufficient sense of vocation not to expect a decent salary for the job. One may have a feeling of vocation in one's own job. That is a different thing. One may be, as, perhaps, Members of Parliament are, prepared to work for less than what they estimate is their full worth, but it is not our job or that of the Home Office to say that because probation officers have a sense of vocation they ought to accept salary increases which are below a reasonable and fair amount. That is what is happening at the moment, however.
What happens in this profession as in all other professions is that when one is young and without many responsibilities one does not mind doing an interesting job for a very low salary, but the time comes when a man gets family responsibilities, and, of course, the senior officers are the people most likely to have those family responsibilities. There comes a time when every man has to ask himself a very serious question—whether he ought to continue in a profession which is not offering adequate emoluments for the more responsible positions to which he can hope to advance and whether he ought, before he is too old, to look out for another job which will be more remunerative. That is what has been happening amongst probation officers, and amongst the most valuable people.
It is no answer merely to quote figures about the total amount of recruitment and the total amount of wastage, and so on, because they conceal the fact that the numbers are very often kept up by the bringing in of people who are inexperienced and many of whom are not adequately trained. Whether or not they are adequately trained, no amount of training can take the place of experience. What the courts need is a reasonable number of senior officers in senior positions to give advice to their junior

colleagues and to give advice to the courts in difficult cases, and we can get them only if we are prepared to pay a reasonable amount.
It seems to me shocking that the Home Secretary should take this attitude after there has been a negotiation by a body which is not over-prejudiced in favour of making an increase to probation officers—because it is not telling a secret out of school to say that the local authorities' representatives are not likely to encourage increases in the probation service salaries when they know that those will have a reflection upon the claims, perhaps, of welfare workers in children's departments. If the logic of the situation compels a committee to reach an agreement that the salaries should be increased, the Home Secretary by his unilateral action, in the suggestion he put forward, seems to me to be not only rather churlish but to be endangering the whole of the service. This calls for a very serious explanation.
As a Lancastrian Member of the House and a London magistrate I can hold the balance between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dorset, North (Colonel R. H. Glyn), and I can only say that in London certainly we have lost probation officers who have gone to far more congenial areas where the cost of living is lower. Men who have got to the age when they have to consider, for instance, the education of their children tend to move out of London because the cost of living is so high and to go to areas where they can live at a lower rate and in more congenial conditions, perhaps near a school to which they can send their children. That is probably the reason why the hon. and gallant Gentleman finds he can get all the probation officers he wants. We in London certainly do not find that.
I would support the appeal which has been made for the setting up of a Departmental committee to look into the whole question of the status of the probation officer and his relationships with other services and with other wings of other branches of the administration of justice. It seems very strange that the ordinary working of the probation service was not included in the terms of reference of the Ingleby Committee; and therefore that


Committee, presumably, will not be able to make a comprehensive review of the work the probation officer is doing. If that is so, as I think it is, surely the right hon. Gentleman should recognise the need to have some other committee prepared to look not just at the methods of training in isolation, or merely at the immediate problems, but to take a broad view of the whole working of probation and the whole problem of the position probation officers occupy in comparison with officers of other services, because, after all, the probation officer comes in contact with children's officers, with the police, and so on, and he ought to be in a comparable position, with comparable status. That is a problem to which a Departmental committee might very well devote its attention.
Part of this Supplementary Estimate is for premises, and I should like to have some indication from the Joint Under-Secretary of State whether there is to be, as we hope, improvement in the premises provided. Or is this Supplementary Estimate merely to meet increases in rents? Does this increase mean that the Home Office is taking some steps forward in the provision of premises for officers? Some of the premises are really extremely shoddy and quite unworthy of the work which probation officers are asked to do.
A boy or girl coming, as many of the children do, from a poor home and very bad conditions comes to see the probation officer who represents the court, who has the authority of the court behind him. Prestige counts for quite a bit, and it is desirable that the boy or girl should see the probation officer in surroundings which are clean and comfortable, reasonably warm and properly lighted, and so on. It is not for us to ask officers to deal with probationers in conditions which are exceedingly squalid. I am certain that if the hon. and learned Gentleman were to make a survey of some of the working conditions of probation officers he would find they are deplorable. Therefore, I hope he will be able to say something about how this extra money is being used and that it is for the improvement of premises.
The only other matter I would ask about is that part of the Supplementary Estimate which deals with homes and hostels. Again, does this mean that there is to be an increase in the supply of

probation hostels? There is at present a very serious lack of these premises, especially in the places where they are most needed, that is, outside the big towns, in the smaller towns and country areas.
The whole point of a probation hostel is that it is the place to which we want to send a probationer in order to get him away from a bad environment. If there is a long waiting list for probation hostels their whole value is destroyed. What is the use of a court's saying to a probation officer, "Your report says this boy ought to be removed from the environment in which he is living and that he ought to be got away from his home for a bit. Can you find him a place in a hostel?" if the court is told that the earliest vacancy that can be got is in three or four months' time? Then, because of the wholly and unnecessarily inadequate provision of hostels, either the boy can be committed only to an approved school, or alternatively be left at home in the very environment from which it is considered he ought to be removed.
I should like to know from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in view of the Estimate we are being asked to approve, what the prospects are for the provision of these hostels. What is the likelihood that there will be such extensions of the service that there will not be waiting lists so that within a reasonable time it will be possible to get a probationer away from home quickly? I suggest that the value of probation as a solution to the problem is to act quickly when we have to act. If the situation is one in which it is necessary to get somebody away from his home conditions it is really very frightening if one has then to sit back and watch deterioration take place, and breaches of the probation occur, which it was anticipated would occur if there were not immediate action, simply because the Home Office has not discharged the function laid upon it by Parliament to see that there is adequate provision for probation homes and hostels. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say something about that which will be of comfort to all of us.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I certainly support the request for this additional provision required to meet increases of salaries and maintenance


costs, and I do so for the reasons set out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Colonel R. H. Glyn), and also because I support what has been said by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I say that with some hesitation, because the last time I supported something said by some hon. Gentlemen opposite the Government were immediately defeated in the Lobby. Though I accept a great deal of what hon. Gentlemen opposite have said and though I appreciate the great concern they feel. I think that some of them have put their case a little too high.
I appreciate that everybody wants general economy, but when we come to their special interests they want increased expenditure. I believe that this is increased expenditure from which every citizen in the country will benefit. We have come a long way since the early days of the probation service, but sometimes the reports are rather unrealistic. I heard of the case of a girl who had been savagely attacked by three young men. When the judge read the report of the probation officer on the first boy, it started with the words, "This likeable lad …"
It is clear that we need a sense of reality in our probation officers, and I think we get it. We also need an appreciation of what punishment can do. We also need, and get, a sense of humanity, which we find in all the courts and which is so impressive when probation officers give their evidence. It is always a pleasure to hear this in the courts of assize and quarter sessions, as well as in the magistrates' courts, to which they afford so much assistance.
I appreciate that salaries play a great part and I urge with diffidence that the salary position should be reviewed. On the other hand, it is true to say that this profession is a vocation, as is shown by the tolerance and patience exercised by women probation officers in the juvenile courts. Indeed, the confidence generally felt in them by all branches of the legal profession is a high tribute to the profession.
Although I hope it will be possible to increase the remuneration of these officers, 11 think that in certain circumstances the work could be made easier. Certain branches of the criminal law—the Vagrancy Act of 1824 and the Criminal

Justice Act, 1948, particularly Section 460 (5) about which I have put down a Question—could assist the work of probation officers. It would assist the officer concerned if the same court dealt with an offender who committed a further offence, so that he did not have to make his report to the court which has passed sentence for the further offence and then have to return to the court which originally put the man on probation.
A fruitful field of recruitment for probation officers might be found in those leaving the Services in the near future. I have discussed this point with my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State. I am thinking of men with experience of handling others, of discipline, of sensibility, men to whom young people will look up and whom they will respect. Hon. Members who are politicians perhaps spend their time surrounded only by honourable and honest men, but those who see the types of prisoner continually coming before the criminal courts will appreciate that a probation officer must be a man of authority.
A man with a distinguished service record, who will be regarded as being as tough as they are, is the type I have in mind. Let there be no doubt about the toughness of the problem which many probation officers have to meet. While we salute them for the task they do, we must not forget the ugliness of much of the material with which they have to deal and the real threat to society represented by these young offenders.
Therefore, I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend this fruitful field of recruitment from officers who have retired on pension, who could be selected because of their vocational desire to assist in this way. This would reinforce the service and it would not be a great financial burden upon the community. In conclusion, I support strongly what so many hon. Members have said today and I add my personal tribute to these distinguished men and women.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Danner: I am a little worried about the point made by the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson). It is obvious that when we are dealing with the question of salaries we should consider whether they are being paid to the right


persons and whether they are adequate. I have had some experience of this subject in a professional capacity, but with a different approach from that of the hon. Gentleman. If he will reconsider what he has suggested, I believe he will come to the conclusion that training in the Forces is hardly the best for the position of a probation officer. I do not say for a moment that there are not many who could be trained later to deal with these problems satisfactorily, but I doubt whether the fact that a man has left the Army in itself qualifies him for the delicate and important job of looking after people referred to the probation service for help.

Mr. Rawlinson: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. What I meant to convey was that there are many men who have retired from the Services, and who have had experience in man management who could play a useful part in dealing with a type of criminal we meet today. I do not mean everyone, but I would have thought this a fruitful field from which to find men to assist in this important service.

Mr. Janner: I am sorry, but I still beg to differ from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman. I admit that this might be possible in the case of a man who has to deal with a pretty tough customer, but he would hardly come within the provisions adumbrated by the Probation of Offenders Act. However, I do not want to go further into that point, because there may be many men who could be trained for this purpose on leaving the Services. The important thing is the training.
Has full consideration been given to the type of training undergone by those for whom the grant is intended an those to whom the increase is expected to act as an inducement? This is one of our most important social services. Its potentialities are wide and give an opportunity to rehabilitate people who have drifted and who, but for the probation service, would find themselves in that serious position in which so many others found themselves before the service was introduced.
I can remember the case of a person who was first sent to prison for having stolen an apple and who then drifted into a life of crime because he had been sent to prison. This case happened many years ago when there was no probation service

and the man in question led a life of crime in consequence of the penalty imposed for that one slip. Later, when he asked me to defend him in respect of an offence he had committed, he said that although he had been in prison for many years, if the magistrates on that occasion would deal with his case as though it were a first offence under the Probation of offenders Act, he would turn over a new leaf. I am happy to say that, in spite of all the sentences which he had suffered, the magistrates took that merciful view and, as far as I know, that man who was a criminal for many years did not revert to crime. That incident in some way indicates the importance of the service with which we are dealing.
If the £90,000 will meet the real needs, then it should be granted so that the present officers of the service will be satisfied and so that the additional expenditure will act as an inducement to others. That is the purpose of the additional grant, to pay the individuals who need it and to act as an inducement so that others will think that the service is worth while.
Anyone who knows the probation officers service and the wonderful work which is done will agree that those who enter it very often do so at considerable sacrifice to themselves and mainly for humanitarian reasons. Some officers may not come up to the mark, but it would not be natural to expect a service of that sort to be perfect throughout. However, the vast majority of the men and women of the probation service are devoted people, anxious to do good and who enter the service irrespective of the insufficiency of the salary.
However, that is not entirely all that we need. The hon. Member for Epsom has fallen into the error of believing that if a man is prepared to render a particular kind of service, he can do it. With the best intentions in the world, there are people who want to do work of this nature but who are not adaptable or sufficiently trained for the purpose. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the salary increase will attract men and women of the highest quality? All sorts of people read and respond to advertisements for new officers, goodhearted and good-natured people, but incapable of fulfilling the required duties.
People like that may be excellent men and women, but I contend that to be


probation officers requires skilled service. In the course of their daily work, they handle very difficult and intimate personal problems, not only problems concerning delinquents and their families, but problems involving matrimonial conciliation work and duties in connection with adoption proceedings and matters of that sort.
I do not know whether this extra money will affect that position. Will it avoid the appointment of untrained persons who will appear in court on the first day of that appointment on the same standing and with the same responsibility and salary scale as a trained and experienced officer? I am not saying that the service should be constituted entirely of university graduates, but people dealing with these matters, particularly young officers, should have a social science training at least so that they understand all the complexities of the problems with which they have to deal.
I understand that there are two-year diploma courses—not degree courses—that these are open to people with no particular academic or educational qualification, and to those who have already worked in industrial, commercial, business, professional, or Service life. I am not sure whether those courses are open to people of all ages, but certainly they are open to younger people.
I believe that several years ago the official representative body of the probation officers submitted a document on this subject to the Home Secretary's Advisory and Training Board. Do the people to whom the new salaries are to be paid have either an appropriate degree or a university social science diploma, or are they able and willing to obtain such qualifications? Have they completed at least one year in industrial, commercial, business, professional or Service life? That was the requirement suggested by these very experienced officers for future entrants to the service. Will the £90,000 relate to men within those categories?
The hon. and learned Gentleman may say that because of the shortage of candidates he has had to broaden entry into the service and give entrants some kind of training over two or three months. That will not do. The recruiting situation is now easier than it was a few months ago. We are told by the Home

Secretary that there are now about seventy or eighty vacancies and that when these have been filled the service will be able to carry on its work properly. I agree with the representations of the probation officers that that is a false picture and that even if the service is brought up to the established strength those in it will be badly over-worked. It is a well-informed view that there should be at least 100 additional officers.
Many extra duties have been placed upon probation officers in recent years, and the incidence of crime is higher than it has been for many years. It may be suggested that this will disappear when the wartime population bulge passes, but it is not entirely accounted for by youth and children. Furthermore, since the probation service is better trained and better qualified than ever before, the consequences are not that more cases may come its way, but that courts are now placing on probation more difficult types of offenders in respect of whom personal and emotional complications have to be sorted out. Today, probation officers are used as experts, even in the higher courts
I should like to give one example to illustrate my claim that £90,000 is a small increase of salaries in respect of this service. A short time ago, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice reduced a sentence of eight years' preventive detention to one of two years' probation. There are other examples of the use of the probation service by High Court judges in cases which a few years ago would never have been considered for probation. Case loads are high, and even if the service were fully manned and they were lower it would only mean that probation officers would have the opportunity of doing more intensive work, in some cases which today have to be allowed to lapse or be given much less attention than is needed.
This situation causes anxiety to probation officers. The Minister knows of it from personal experience. It is not a question of our having to appeal to an individual who is dissociated from the subject matter being discussed. The hon and learned Gentleman has had a fair amount of experience in the courts, and he knows the importance of this very great work. I appeal to him and to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—


who also has a considerable understanding of these matters—to realise that in their hands lies the possibility of carrying out work whose importance to the nation cannot be over-estimated. The probation service requires skilled people, and also people with heart, understanding and noble ideas and ideals. These are difficult things to bring together, but in my view neither of these qualifications is sufficient without the other. We must show that we regard this as a worthwhile service.
So much for the service itself. I hope that the appeal made to the Minister about the salaries of the highest officials in the service will be regarded in the proper light. These people should receive remuneration consistent with that of the lawyers, the medical people and the psychiatrists who play a part in the work of the courts. They are people in whose hands lie the destiny of men and women requiring expert treatment.
It is true that the accommodation of probation officers does not fit the purpose of the service. It needs offices which impress the delinquents who come before probation officers. Many of these people commit offences which we may have committed in our youth without having been discovered or, having been discovered, were let off with a warning or something a little more effective in the way of physical action on the part of a parent. The effectiveness of the treatment depends to some extent upon the atmosphere into which these people are brought. It is necessary that a person who acts on behalf of the delinquent shall be able to commend the advice which the probation service——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That argument is not concerned with the Estimate.

Mr. Janner: I am talking about accommodation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know.

Mr. Janner: The words "official accommodation" are to be found in Subhead B.1. The Subhead deals with the maintenance costs of official accommodation, and it is to be found on page 54. I hope that a substantial proportion of the Estimate will be spent upon this official accommodation, because of the circumstances in which probation officers carry on their work.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have looked at page 54. Where is this item?

Mr. Janner: It comes under the heading "Probation of Offenders, &c." Subhead B.1 reads:
Grants towards the expenses of probation: Additional provision required to meet increases in salaries, and in maintenance costs of official accommodation, &amp;c…

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I see it. The hon. Member is in order.

Mr. Janner: That is the point to which I was directing my few remarks.
My hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have dealt with other matters concerning this service, and I need hardly say that I fully agree with most of what they have said. This is a noble occupation, which impresses us all. I hope that the debate which has taken place will induce the Minister not only to be thankful that he has asked for £90,000, but to resolve that at some future time he will present a very much larger Estimate. If he does I can assure him that he will have very little opposition.

5.40 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): As was said by the hon. Member for Leicester. North-West (Mr. Janner) this Supplementary Estimate covers a small amount, but by the skill of hon. Members and the indulgence of the Chair the discussion on it has been wide.
The Supplementary Estimate is for £90,000 over and above the sum of £920,000 in the original Estimate of last year. The total sum includes £55,000 for increased salaries for probation officers. A further sizeable sum, I am glad to say, is due to increased recruitment; in other words, there are more officers to be paid.
The rest is taken up by various miscellaneous matters, of which accommodation is one. It has been said that probation officers have to work in unsuitable offices. We agree that there is scope for improvement, but improvement is taking place all the time, and the greater part of the sum in this Supplementary Estimate for accommodation relates to repairs and maintenance.
Before dealing with the matter which has loomed largest in this debate, I wish


to endorse the many apt phrases used sincerely by hon. Members when paying tributes to the work of probation officers. The service has been described as a devoted service, a modern social service, a service in which the probation officers are following a real vocation. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Colonel R. H. Glyn) who, I understand, was speaking in a home affairs debate for the first time, referred so fittingly to probation officers as dedicated workers. My right hon. Friend values the work which they do and the way in which they do it.
A great many facts on the question of pay have been stated by hon. Gentlemen, but in my view the essential facts are these. An Industrial Court award was made in May, 1957, in which was recommended an increase of 8·2 per cent. for those at the top of the scale and 18·6 per cent. for those at the bottom, to operate from 1st January, 1957. For all ordinary officers, as they are technically termed—though I do not like the expression, because I do not regard probation officers as ordinary people—there was no dispute about this. They were awarded what the Industrial Court recommended.
The Joint Negotiating Committee was then asked to consider the position of those in the supervisory grades, and on 16th October, 1957, it recommended that people in those grades, instead of 8·2 per cent., should have an increase of 10 per cent. My right hon. Friend's award of 8·2 per cent., dated 29th January, 1958, related back to 1st January, 1957, and affected 185 people. It would have cost about £4,000 more to have paid an increase of 10 per cent.
I do not depart from the reasons which I stated in the Adjournment debate the other night. My right hon. Friend considered this matter most carefully, and reluctantly came to the conclusion that in the present economic and financial circumstances there was no reason that he could see for going beyond the 8·2 per cent. that he originally recommended. My right hon. Friend wishes me to say that, obviously, this is a matter which must receive attention as time goes on. Fortunately, there is nothing final about these matters. But for the time being, at any rate, we must make it abundantly plain that in our opinion the increase of 8·2 per cent., following as it did the last

increase in March, 1956, is appropriate in the circumstances.
There was a certain amount of confusion about the scale of salaries and it may help if I mention what they are as a result of these increases. For ordinary officers they range from £575 to £860. The hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) mentioned the case of a man who, in his opinion, was not receiving enough, but this man was getting the very award which had been agreed by the Joint Negotiating Committee. Of the supervisory officers, senior officers get £865, rising to £1,030. Principal officers, of whom there are seven grades, get from £1,005 to £1,730.
A question closely linked with that of pay is recruitment and strength generally. It may interest the House to have the latest figures. The number of ordinary probation officers is now 1,120. an increase of over 5 per cent. in the past twelve months. During 1957, 100 new appointments were made and there was a wastage of 40. During 1957, we recruited over 100 people for the training scheme for full-time probation work, a very considerable rise on previous years. The training is from one year to three years, according to what is needed, and I will deal with that further in a moment. We are hoping, as a result of recruitment in the last three years, that there will be about 70 probation officers coming out of training this year to fill vacancies.
I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Crewe about the possession of university qualifications. There are about 400 out of a total of over 1,300 probation officers with university qualifications of some kind. About 50 have university degrees, not merely diplomas but degrees. There was a dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West about the suitability of former Army officers and other Service officers for probation work. There are already a noticeable number of Army officers doing probation work. I think that 11 were recruited last year. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West was good enough to refer to my experience in the courts in this matter. Like him, I have seen probation officers at work, and I have seen Army officers doing probation work extremely well.
The hon. Gentleman has had Service experience himself, as well as being a lawyer, and it surprised me that he should cast doubt upon the suitability of officers for this work, because a great deal of their work in the Services might be described as welfare work.

Mr. Janner: I am fully aware that there are many ex-officers who are quite suitable for this kind of work, but I gathered that the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that this occupation was particularly suitable for officers as such. I doubt whether that would be correct.

Mr. Renton: I am glad that the hon. Member was not condemning the principle of having officers from the Services, who can be most helpful.
Officers from the Army applying for probation work will have to undergo training, the length of which will depend upon the nature of their experience, as with other applicants. A Departmental committee to go into these matters was suggested by some hon. Members, but I think that I should be exceeding the Supplementary Estimate if I replied, reluctant as I am to appear to evade the questions. This is clearly not a matter that can be suitably discussed on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who opened the debate in a very fair and full way, although I did not agree with all that he said about pay, asked me whether the increased expenditure was due to increased caseload or to extension of the functions of the probation service. The caseload has been increasing steadily in recent years. From the figures, it is clear that the average is about 50 per probation officer, but I do not think that figure means very much. There are probation officers in outlying areas who have a very small case load, while those in urban areas are very well over what is considered the desirable maximum of sixty, especially in London, in the outer London area and in parts of Lancashire.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is not replying to the request which came from all parts of the House for a Departmental committee—perhaps it is not possible for him to reply within the terms of order—could he say

whether his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is on the Government Front Bench, would be prepared to receive a deputation from both sides of the House to urge upon him the necessity that we have all expressed without exception for a Departmental committee?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As the Minister said, the question of a Departmental committee was out of order on the Supplementary Estimate, so that I hope that the Minister will not answer that question.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I did not ask for an answer on the question of the Departmental committee, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but on whether the Minister would convey an invitation to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman is present, he can hear the invitation for himself.

Mr. Renton: I shall have great pleasure in telling my right hon. Friend what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. My right hon. Friend is a very ready listener to all matters affecting this House.
In my own poor way, I have answered the points which were raised in the debate and which fell within the Supplementary Estimate. A number of other points were raised which I feel it would not be in order for me to answer. Hon. Gentlemen who put them were, perhaps, lucky to get them out of their mouths before being stopped by the Chair. This has been a very useful debate. My right hon. Friend and I will take good note of the points made. I would once more repeat that the probation service is most valuable and that we must do all we can to encourage it in the future.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is it not a reflection on the Chair for the Joint Under-Secretary of State to suggest what it is in order to ask questions about and what it would be out of order to reply to?

Mr. Renton: I thought that I had covered that point by saying that hon. Gentlemen had managed to get the topics out of their mouths and make their points and that, as they had made them, it was perhaps too late for the Chair to do anything about them.

Orders of the Day — EGYPT (EXPELLED BRITISH SUBJECTS)

5.55 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I desire to raise another matter with the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. It is not that I am out of sympathy at all with the probation service. On the contrary but I am particularly interested in the question of refugees and I want to call attention to the Subhead G.2, which relates to the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board.
Many refugees have come to this country. Refugees came in 1951 and again in 1956, and I would pay tribute to the work of the Resettlement Board, which has done a great deal of work in this connection. In the details which are given in page 55 I read that the additional provision is required
to meet increased expenditure of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board (Registered Trustees) mainly due to the introduction of a scheme for the issue of ex-gratia loans against reckonable assets.
I should like to know whether other people who have reckonable assets are being helped by this Supplementary Estimate, and how many refugees are still unsettled among those who came in 1951 and those in 1956. Is this large sum of money likely to be recurring? Shall we need a further supplementation on a large scale in the future? How are the refugees settling down? I understand that quite a large number of the refugees still find the language of this country difficult and I would like to know whether some of this money will go towards their education.
Many of the refugees are aged and may never be able to live a normal life here. I therefore suggest that some of this Supplementary Estimate might go towards providing bungalows for them, on the lines followed by the Sutton Dwellings Trust. They will then be happier if they have to live out the rest of their lives in this country. They may be over 60, 70 or even over 80, and to live a normal life in this country is difficult for them. I shall be very grateful, also, for details about the number employed, the number unemployable and about those who have as yet no idea what will be the final solution of their economic problems.

5.59 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I fully endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) about the very excellent work that has been done by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, and I quite agree that, on the face of it, this does look rather a large Supplementary Estimate, amounting, as it does, to over £3 million. I shall be in order, I think, if, in a few sentences, I explain how it has come about.
There have been three phases in dealing with the expellees. In the first phase, when they started to arrive, emergency arrangements were made under the supervision of the National Assistance Board. Thereafter, various voluntary organisations took over the work to provide accommodation, and to aid their welfare work of this sort was done, in particular, by the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society. When the problem grew to larger proportions and a considerable number of people was involved—indeed, when there were wider problems with which to deal—the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board was set up, in February, 1957.
The Estimate that was put before the House last year came at the very beginning of the life of the Resettlement Board, when it was very difficult to assess what would be the needs and claims of people still arriving. That original Estimate was for £700,000, but the Board subsequently put in a revised estimate for £2,450,000. Last year, the scheme of ex-gratia claims on reckonable assets was agreed by the Government. That, in the main, is responsible for the very substantial Supplementary Estimate that we have today.
Perhaps I may say at once, in answer to my hon. Friend's inquiry, that the 1951 returnees from Egypt are covered in this Estimate only in so far as they come under the auspices of the Resettlement Board as being in need, or suffering hardship. They do not come under the Board in respect of those assets against which they have made claims, which are not, in the sense of the Estimate, reckon-able assets; and the negotiations in regard to their loss—not being physical assets, in the sense of this Supplementary


Estimate—are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. As they come under the aegis of another Department and are not covered by this Supplementary Estimate, it would be out of order for me to make further comment on that category of returnees from Egypt.
The extent to which—very largely as a result of this large Supplementary Estimate—the 1956 Anglo-Egyptian expellees have been resettled is a matter, I am sure, of very great gratification to the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, and hon. Members might like to have a few figures illustrative of what has been achieved. Altogether, 1,330 persons have emigrated, their fares to their destinations being found by the Board.
Next. 855 families, approximately 2,565 people, have been resettled in this country, leaving about 2,000 still to be resettled. Some of those are still in the hostels, and some are in other accommodation, receiving maintenance grants and aid from the Board. The number receiving domiciliary allowances to supplement their earnings, is 59, and the number receiving full maintenance allowances outside the hostels is 271. Resident now in the hostels, there remain only 990 people—about 300 families.
The aged persons to whom my hon. Friend referred are very difficult to resettle. Many of them cannot speak the language and find it particularly difficult to learn. Premises for two old people's residential clubs have been found and their purchase and preparation has been agreed, in principle, by the Board. We hope that this will make a very real contribution to their resettlement in this type of accommodation which, we believe, is most suitable to them——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that I heard the hon. Lady say just now that she would be out of order if she spoke about a certain matter, but this Supplementary Estimate is so big as to be of the same order of magnitude as the original Estimate. That being so, I would not rule it out of order to discuss policy, if the hon. Lady wished to do so.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I rather thought that I was explaining where the

£3 million of the Estimate had gone to—but if you say that I am out of order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is that if the sum demanded by a Supplementary Estimate is of the same order of magnitude as the original Estimate, as this is, the hon. Lady can discuss policy.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The point with which, with respect, I though I would not be in order to deal, was that concerning the 1951 returnees, as they are a subject for the Foreign Office and not the Home Office, If I may say so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that we are in agreement.
The number of people who have received ex gratia payments is 2,100, involving a total expenditure of £3,548,000. As for pensions, the Board was, at one time, paying pensions to 493 Anglo-Egyptian expellees, but, recently, the Egyptian Government have been paying some of those from whom they had been withholding pension. At the moment, the number being paid by the Board is 82. The remainder, as I say, are at present being paid by the Egyptian Government.
I hope, therefore, that the House will feel that excellent work has been done by the Board, and that very substantial progress has been achieved, both in helping those families to emigrate who wished to, and alternatively in resettling the refugees in this country. I can assure my hon. Friend that great care has been taken to provide for education and, in particular, to deal with any difficulty experienced by adults. I should like to take this opportunity to thank, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, the local education authorities for their very great cooperation. When there was an influx of children who, in many cases, could not speak a word of English, those authorities were most helpful and co-operative in aiding the children so that they might be assimilated quickly into the schools. In view of the size of the problem, it has been a comparatively speedy process, and we are most grateful to them.
I believe that both sides of the House will agree that this problem is being admirably dealt with by the Board, and would wish to join in our expression of thanks to them, and to its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, who was for


so long a member of this House. I hope that the House will approve the Supplementary Estimate.

Question put and agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Under this Vote we are asked for an additional £131,900 to meet the cost of grants for fire authorities in England and Wales as a result of increases in pay and increased strengths of fire forces. We must set against those increases the increase in the load which the fire services are carrying.
None of us begrudges the increase or the revised Estimate of £5,547,900. We regard it as a small payment for the gallantry and devotion of the men and women in our fire brigades. Firemen have always held a very special place in public affection. Certainly, that has been my own experience since the days when, as a small boy, I was allowed to visit a fire station at Oxford, to sit on a horse-drawn fire escape and to ring the bell as much as I wanted. Those were days when bell ringing was a perfectly respectable pastime without any political significance.
One's respect for the service grows as one grows older and as one appreciates the dangers which firemen face and the inconvenience which their occupation involves. Tragedies like the Lewisham rail crash remind us of the incomparable and varied service which the fire brigades render to the community. Tragedies like the loss of two brave men in the Smithfield disaster bring home to us the risks they run and the courage they show. Yet Smithfield was not an isolated incident. Just before Christmas an officer and two men were killed in a fire in Kent. In my submission, therefore, the Home Secretary was right, when he met a deputation from the Fire Brigades Union in December, to pay tribute to what he called the devoted work of the union's members and the high reputation and regard they enjoyed with the general public.
The amount which we are asked to vote is a quite inadequate way of expressing our appreciation to the men and women of the fire service, and on a strictly materialist level it is a very small insurance that we pay against greater losses. Last year in England and Wales, as far as I have been able to ascertain, 436 lives were lost in fires. A comparable figure for Scotland was 57.
During the same period the financial loss in capital terms was about £27 million. But, of course, the capital sum involved does not represent the real loss which the country sustains. Fires like the £2¼ million fire at the Jaguar works at Coventry and the £1 million Goodyear tyre works fire at Wolverhampton must affect production and may affect our export trade. Any increase in expenditure which makes for a more effective and more efficient service is therefore to be welcomed by the House.
At the same time, there are certain questions which I want to put to the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State. The first concerns the extent to which the increased expenditure is due to increased activity on the part of the fire services. If we look at page 7 of the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services for the year 1956, we find that the inspector reports that,
The number of fires attended shows an increase.
In that year fire brigades in England and Wales attended 111,000 fires, other than chimney fires. In addition,
the Fire Service assisted in the rescue of about 300 persons from dangerous situations.
The report went on to say that,
Heavy demands continue to be made on Fire Brigades in respect of attendances to chimney fires, special services and false alarms.
The number of calls to this type of incident totalled no fewer than 226,678 in 1956.
On page 9 of the Report the Chief Inspector goes on to say:
In spite of increasing demands on their time, Brigades have continued their day to day activities in close contact with members of the public, by inspection work in pursuance of the statutory liabilities of their own and other Local Authorities, visits of an advisory nature and lectures to school children and to youth and other organisations.
The total number of inspections and other visits carried out in the period was


201,546. There is no reason to suppose that that increase in the work which the fire services are asked to do diminished in the year which we are at present considering. I ask the hon. Lady to tell us whether that state of affairs persisted throughout 1957 and whether any part of the £131,900 is attributable to it.
While we are considering the extra load which the fire services are asked to carry, there is now one special additional hazard, and that is the hazard of dealing with radioactive materials. First, there is the risk of accidents in unloading radioactive material at docks, or accidents in transporting that radioactive material to its destination. I want to ask the hon. Lady whether any special equipment is being provided for use in such emergencies and, if so, whether that special equipment is covered in the Supplementary Estimate.
The second special risk arises from the possibility of nuclear bombers crashing in this country. I should like to quote to the House the letter which the General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, Mr. Horner, wrote to the Under-Secretary of State on 13th December, 1957:
My Executive Council has had requests from various Brigades that the Fire Service Department should be approached in order that the Fire Service might be adequately advised as to the particular dangers likely to be met with by appliance crews if called upon to deal with an incident involving the crash of aircraft carrying atomic weapons.
My Executive Council considered these requests at its meeting this week. It has now instructed me to approach you to request that you issue appropriate guidance and instructions to all Fire Brigades.
My Executive Council has noted the various statements of the Prime Minister that if one of these aircraft, carrying nuclear weapons, crashes it is assumed to be unlikely that a nuclear explosion will take place. However, it would appear that there is evidence that as a result of fire, various physical and chemical reactions will follow, giving rise to radioactivity and the creation of dangerous gases.
We consider that the Fire Service should be equipped to deal with such a contingency, that personnel should be provided with safety clothing and that as far as is possible guidance and instructions should immediately be issued to Chief Officers.
The Executive Council of this Union regards this as a matter of considerable urgency…
That letter was written on 13th December, and it was only recently that a reply

was sent enclosing an answer given in the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to say what steps are being taken to comply with the very reasonable request made to her Department by the union representing the vast majority of men in the fire service.
The fact that this additional volume of work is being undertaken is the more surprising when we realise that the service is still under strength. Indeed, it is so much under strength that many practical firemen question whether the efficiency of the service can be maintained. If there is anything in that point of view at all, we are entitled to ask whether we are having the best value for the money expended or whether great risks are being taken in spite of the additional expenditure we are being asked to vote tonight.
After the Fire Services Act, 1948, was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council was set up. One of the first actions of that council was to lay down an establishment for the fire service and to settle fire cover requirements. The establishment was designed to provide a full crew of five for all appliances at all times. Unfortunately, recruiting has been such that most brigades have never come up to those figures. A Select Committee of the House recommended a review in 1954. That Committee, in paragraph 25 of its Report, gave its views:
Your Committee are…convinced that the time has come for the whole basis of risk categories and standards of cover to be reexamined in the light of the experience and developments of the last six years.
The Committee went on to suggest that the Home Office and the Scottish Home Department
should initiate a comprehensive review of risk categories, standards of cover, and of the Fire Services, area by area. They further recommended that similar reviews should be held at regular intervals, say, every five years.
It is interesting to note that on the same page the Select Committee paid a remarkable tribute to the London Fire Brigade, saying:
Your Committee consider that the London Fire Brigade demonstrates how a well organised Brigade can, by efficient management and the continuous adoption of new equipment, meet substantially increased calls not only without


such an increase in establishment as would require the expenditure of more public money, but even within the frustrating limits imposed by a shortage of authorised staff.
Although the Select Committee made its Report in 1954, no new standard has yet been laid down. I appreciate that there is here, of course, a difference of opinion between the local authorities, the employers, and the Fire Brigades' Union. I should like to quote the passage in the Report of the Fire Brigades Advisory Council to which the Association of Municipal Corporations and other local authorities have agreed:
Some standards of cover are necessary for the purpose of settling fire brigade establishments, but we are conscious that the practical question is how to determine establishments so as to ensure that the risk to brigades of being unable to make an effective attendance is not unduly great after all relevant circumstances have been taken into account. This is a question which it is primarily for higher authorities to answer since it is upon the individual fire authorities that the primary responsiblity for the preparation of establishment schemes rests and must always rest.
It is fair to quote that, I think, as the view of the local authorities concerned. Equally, of course, it is the primary duty of the firemen to put out the fires when they occur. It is a sobering thought that, in 1956, 85 per cent. of the fires requiring an initial attendance of two fully manned appliances were dealt with by appliances under strength. I have no doubt that the same position continued in the year we are now considering.
I have here some figures sent to me by the Fire Brigades Union after conducting a survey of returns from various parts of the country. The union says:
Out of 75 reports examined, the majority show that serious manpower deficiencies exist because no adjustment to authorised strength has taken place since 1947 and present strengths will only allow manning up to standard, i.e., 5 and 5, when all personnel are available. In fact, a good percentage shows that very few authorities are able to comply with 5 and 5 and cannot guarantee even 5 and 4 for 50 per cent. of calls. Of the better reports, only one brigade, that is, Cardiff, shows 100 per cent. manning up to, and, in some cases above, present requirements, but, in view of the general type of report. I am inclined to doubt this report.
That is the Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union making that comment. The Report goes on:
Of these 'better' reports, in Salford up to authorised establishments can provide full manning, that is, 5 and 5, on only 56 per cent. of occasions, Burnley provide full manning

or more on 83 per cent. of occasions, while Barrow-in-Furness consistently provide an average of 12 riders for two appliances. One of the worst examples of under-manning is Essex where it appears that the 56-hour week is to be operated with fewer men than were found necessary for the 60-hour week.
There is, therefore, considerable apprehension on the part of the men responsible for putting out the fires. In the circumstances, before voting this additional amount, we are entitled to ask whether the money is being wisely spent. Any hon. Gentleman who refers to the edition of "Fire", the journal of the British Fire Services, for October, 1956, will find there a description of a fire at Peterborough where an ambulance driver had to go round collecting off-duty personnel because one turntable ladder had turned up with only one man to man it. It is not, perhaps, without significance that on that occasion the fire spread from one side of the street to the other, and there had been suggestions that if it had been possible for more men to deal with the fire the gravity of the outbreak would have been less.
There was an incident at Torquay on 18th October last year. On that occasion, two women were rescued from a fire, but, in the view of the local fire officers and men, not enough personnel were available at the time. It is described in a letter from the Devon area secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, as the
old, old story of not enough hands, of the superhuman efforts of just four men to effect the rescue and fight the fire, wondering where the hell was the help they'd sent for".
The report ends as follows—and I emphasise, Mr. Speaker, that the language used is that of the Devon area secretary and not mine—
But I can tell you something of the feelings of the firemen here at Torquay. The Sub-Officer was Reg Elson, B.F.M., a regular fireman since 1933, ex-Torquay Fire Brigade, no technical expert but a dedicated practical fireman. He came back from this jab shaken—shaken in his faith in the Service, in the administrators and policy-making officers who had made it possible for such a near tragedy to occur.
John, this is a bloody system. We had our branch meeting last Thursday, and the morale is very low. The Sub-Officer asked, the Leading Firemen asked, everyone asked: 'What can we do? We can't make any impression on the C.F.O. We can't get at the Local Authority. When things go wrong the public consider it is our fault. Something has got to be done. Or do we go on until there is a


disaster, have human lives to be lost before attention is attracted to this criminal state of affairs?'.
It is not for me to know whether that is a highly coloured report of an account of an incident which took place, but, if it is, as I understand it to be, the considered view of men with great experience in these matters, it is a point of view which the House ought to take into account in reaching a conclusion about the present state of manning in the Fire Service.
There has been, of course, an increase in manpower in the brigades throughout the country. That has improved the situation, as reference to the inspector's report will show. The surprising thing is, however, that there are no more men riding to fires now than there were in 1948, although the calls on the fire brigades have enormously increased in the intervening period. The reason is that so many men have been taken off fire-fighting work for other duties—for instance, fire prevention, staff duties and civil defence; also there has been a creation of new fire risks in new housing and industrial areas and there is the increase in personnel made necessary by the intention to go from a sixty or even seventy-two hour week to a fifty-six hour week. These factors have meant that nearly 2,000 men have been knocked off the present strength of the fire service.
Under those circumstances, it seems particularly regrettable that the Home Secretary should have rejected the fire-women's claim, which had been agreed to by the local authorities and the union. I am afraid that his action may well have damaged the general recruiting position of the fire service. Therefore, in view of the grave disquiet among firemen, we feel justified in asking whether this money is being effectively spent. In spite of the extra expenditure which we shall vote tonight, we are still not getting adequate fire cover in every case. It is a great pity that a saving on the inspectorate is shown in the Supplementary Estimates, because the inspectors more than earn the money that they received.
I have dealt at length with the question of fire cover and, therefore, at this stage I want to ask only two more questions. First, I would like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State how much of this extra sum that we shall vote tonight

is to be devoted to research into the possibilities of safer and more efficient fire-fighting and how much is to be devoted to fire prevention work, ensuring that architects, builders and others are made aware of the fire risks that are inherent in certain types of construction.
Secondly, I would like to ask whether the Home Office is sure, before we vote this money, that every fireman or fire-woman is being used in the most productive way. If one glances through the various publications which deal with the fire services, one comes across allegations of firemen being used, for example, as gardeners or french polishers. One comes across cases in which firemen are said to have had to submit written reports to the local authorities because they had round rubber heels on their boots.
It is impossible for anybody who is not intimately associated with the service to know whether these allegations are or are not true. But there is a duty upon all of us to do everything we can to ensure that the men and women in the fire service are being used in the most effective possible way so that the service can be as efficient as we want it to be. It is a great and important service. We should remove from it as many irritating restrictions as possible and I have no doubt that, because we have great confidence in the service, the House tonight will gladly vote the additional amount for which the Home Secretary is asking.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: I am glad that the Opposition have chosen for debate the Vote for the fire services. So far, the most interesting point that has come out is that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) once rode on a horse-drawn fire appliance. I never knew that he was that old. He certainly does not look it. I have never ridden on a horse-drawn appliance myself.
I would like to support everything that the hon. Member has said, particularly his point that no one begrudges the amounts expended on the fire services. I am very glad of the support that he has given to the increased expenditure in view of the importance of the fire service in our national life. I am glad of this opportunity to be able to tell the Home Secretary that there is at present in the fire service considerable concern about


what may be the pattern of future events in the light of various expressions of feeling which have come from local councillors in different places during the last few months.
We are living in days when the Government and everybody else are trying to do their best to curb the rise in the cost of living and to restore the value of the £. In so many cases, this means reducing expenditure. Of course, local councils, which have the job of spending the ratepayers' money and trying to make Government grants go further, are inclined to look around to see where they can save a few pounds here or a few pounds there. Inevitably, with about 135 borough authorities, there are bound to be a few where the feeling is expressed by various county councillors or borough councillors that expenditure on the fire service is too extravagant.
Public statements have recently been made, which I personally deplore, where officials or councillors have said, "Before the war, we managed to put out the fires in our town with six whole-time firemen. Now we have 30. Why do we need this enormous increase?" There are answers to this question which the public should know. Today, we have a far higher standard of fire cover than before the war. Furthermore, there are infinitely better conditions for members of the fire brigades than they ever enjoyed before the war or, I should say, suffered from before the war.
There are plenty of people in the fire service today who look to the Home Office to exercise the control which was retained to the Home Office under the Fire Services Act, 1947. Many of us who are connected with the fire brigades, as I have been for the last fifteen years, hope that the Home Office will continue to exercise its control and make absolutely certain that the standards in each fire brigade are not allowed to drop. Indeed, we hope that everything will be done to ensure that the standards, if anything, are improved—standards with regard to the manning of appliances and standards of equipment—and nothing should be allowed to interfere with these standards.
As the hon. Member for Rossendale said, the amount of property which today has to be given fire cover has increased. There has been a great increase in housing, thanks to the Government. I

am glad to get in that "dig" in answer to the quip of the hon. Member for Rossendale about bell-ringing. There is a vast number of private houses now which require fire cover, but which did not before. Furthermore, there has been a large increase in the number of factories. If anything, this number is increasing all the time, and there is not a case for cutting down the fire service.
It is very probable that the fire cover and the methods by which the standards of fire cover are assessed need to be reviewed. I would be interested to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary what steps are taken to review the standards of fire cover from time to time. When I was a fire brigade officer, during the war, at the London Fire Brigade headquarters, it was the job of my department to work out the standards of fire cover that would obtain in the London area after the war.
The walls of my office were covered with maps, upon all of which were little circles. The method of working out what fire cover was required for a particular area was determined by putting a compass on to the map in a particular place, and the radius of the compass represented the distance which a fire appliance could cover in so many minutes. When one drew the circles, which were based on the various fire stations, one had to be certain that the whole of the map was covered to make sure that a fire appliance could reach a given area within a certain number of minutes. I should imagine that these circles need to be redrawn from time to time as building in the various localities changes. It will, however, be found that fire cover must, if anything, be stepped up rather than stepped down.
The undermanning of appliances is a persistent problem, as the members of the association of which I have been a member for many years—the National Association of Fire Officers—well know. It is impossible, and, I think, it always will be, to get 100 per cent. manning of appliances on every occasion. The Fire Brigades Union has expressed the view, with which everybody would agree, that 100 per cent. manning should be the aim, but I think that the reasonable thing to expect is that there should be full manning of appliances on 75 per cent. of attendances. If we can do that, we shall have done very well. The trouble at present is that the figure is


much less than 50 per cent., which, obviously, is far too low. The Home Office should do everything possible to ensure that we get the full manning on at least 75 per cent. of occasions.
When my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary replies, I hope that she will be able to say a word on a matter which is at the moment of great concern not only to members of fire brigades, but also to the public. I refer to the investigations now being conducted, and about which I am not very well informed, into the use of breathing apparatus in the fire service. In the last few years, some disastrous accidents have befallen fire officers and firemen. The recent notable occasion was the Smithfield disaster.
There is concern in various directions to know whether the breathing apparatus now in use is the latest and best and whether it is fitted with any form of alarm which a fireman or fire officer who is wearing the apparatus can use if he finds himself in distress. I have no wish to present an alarmist picture by suggesting that if such a system of apparatus and alarm had been in use, past disasters might have been averted. It is, however, conceivable that they might have been and I do not suppose that we have seen the last of serious fires underground, in which smoke makes it impossible for men to operate without apparatus of this nature. If my hon. Friend can say something about this and the investigations which are now taking place, she could set the minds of many people at rest.
I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Rossendale about the pay of firewomen. It came as something of a shock when the Home Office rejected the recommendation of the National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire Brigades that firewomen should have an increase in pay. The male members of the fire service had an increase in pay in June last year and the increase which was later recommended for fire-women was largely consequential upon the increase given to the male ranks. We therefore considered it extremely hard that the firewomen should be deprived of this increase when the male members had had theirs.
The opportunity was taken to revise the whole structure of firewomen's pay,

but things probably went wrong at the Home Office, because the increase recommended for the firewomen, instead of being in the region of 5 per cent. to 6 per cent., worked out at considerably more.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the firewomen have had a raw deal over the past few years. It may be that both the Fire Brigades Union and the National Association of Fire Officers must accept blame for not having done enough to ensure that the pay of firewomen kept in line with that of the male members of the service. On this occasion, opportunity was taken to try to break away the pay of firewomen from that of women in local government and to ally it to the pay of male members of fire brigades. That is a reasonable thing to do. After all, firewomen do not perform the same sort of duties as women in local government. Women in local government work about 36 to 38 hours a week, whereas a firewomen works a 48-hour week. She works on a shift system, she is not always working during the hours of daytime, she may be working late at night, she has to wear a uniform, she works under a discipline code and her conditions are altogether different. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to agree to the increase in pay which has been recommended for the firewomen in the fire services.
There is one other matter on which I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend can give an answer and which is causing concern to members of certain fire brigades. Among the 135 fire authorities, there are 17 in which the fire brigade is responsible for running not only the fire appliances, but also the ambulances. These are called joint fire and ambulance brigades. As a result of an arbitration court decision a little over a year ago, the officers in the fire brigades were given an increase in pay for the extra responsibility which they had to undertake in being responsible for ambulances and, in many cases, for the personnel who operate them. These allowances which were given to the officers in their fire brigades have not been extended to junior officers, many of whom have much the same duties as the station officers and higher ranks.
One of the extraordinary things which can never be overcome in the fire service


is that although a station officer may be put in charge of a fire station, because of the incidence of what is known as rota leave or annual leave, sickness or attendance at courses, inevitably junior officers—or as they are known in the Armed Forces, N.C.O.s—find themselves in charge of fire stations for a remarkably large proportion of any week. If these junior officers are doing the same work as the station officers and those of higher rank, there are many who consider that it is only right that they should get the same allowances when they carry the extra responsibility. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to give a firm answer tonight, but if she can give an undertaking that her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will look into the matter to ensure that justice is done to the N.C.O.s in the fire service, I shall be obliged.
I hope that the House will keep its eye on the fire service. It is not very often that its activities are discussed here. I am happy to say that the fire brigades are not nowadays in the cockpit of party politics and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the Act which he piloted through Parliament in 1947, which, by and large, is working very satisfactorily.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: It is not my intention to delay the Supplementary Estimate very long. I notice that most of the £168,300 is for increases in pay and I should not dream of holding back an increase in pay to the firemen. It is, however, also concerned with inspection and training and the increased strength of the fire forces. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for introducing the question of danger arising from radioactivity following nuclear weapon accidents. This is a real danger and one which must be faced by the Home Secretary, the Home Office and the fire service in general.
I should like to know to what extent training is taking place to deal adequately, efficiently and safely with accidents that may arise from nuclear weapons and their handling. I have in mind the possibility—I put it no higher, but, nevertheless, the possibility exists—of a nuclear-armed bomber crashing and subsequently bursting into flames, the heat generated being sufficient to burst

the canister of the bomb, oxidising the plutonium and consequently radioactivating a large area around the scene of the accident. As yet, such an accident has not happened—let us hope that it never does; nevertheless, the possibility exists. According to the strength of the prevailing wind, a large area could be affected.
Before we pass the Supplementary Estimate, I should like to know to what extent the Home Office has considered this possibility, why the fire services have not been issued with special instructions, why no special training has taken place and why the fire services have not been issued with adequate equipment to deal with this type of accident.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Supplementary Estimate. He would be quite entitled to ask whether the increased salaries and strength mentioned in the Estimate would cover an accident to a nuclear bomb, but he cannot go into the question in detail. In the Supplementary Estimate, we are dealing only with increased pay and increased strength.

Mr. Mason: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep in order, but I notice that the Supplementary Estimate covers the cost of inspection and training, and I query the training that is to take place.
We are voting a sum of £168,000, most of which will be devoted to increasing the strength of the fire brigades. I am particularly concerned about the training, and I am wondering whether the fire service will receive instructions and will have the opportunity of extending training to deal with this type of danger which is very real now, particularly having in mind the accident which occurred in America when a nuclear bomb was accidentally dropped. Here is something which could possibly happen in this country.
I understand that flights are taking place over this country and, for all I know, there may be one flight per day. There could be a T.N.T. explosion which could scatter radioactive particles. Are we satisfied that when a fire brigade has to go out to deal with such an accident its equipment is sufficient to ward off these particles. Are the gas masks adequate to deal with these dangers, and


have the men the necessary protective clothing in the event of such an accident?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will look at the details of the Supplementary Estimate, in page 64 of the Estimate as a whole, he will see that it is
Additional provision required to meet the cost of grants to Fire Authorities in England and Wales as a result of increases in pay and increased strengths of fire forces.
So far as the hon. Member can connect what he has to say with that, he is in order, but he was mentioning equipment just now and I do not see that that comes into it.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Would not my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) be in order in deploying the line of argument that we are asked to vote an additional sum to cover increases in personnel in the fire service but that there is no point in voting this sum to increase the personnel unless the men are adequately equipped to deal with these new hazards?

Mr. Speaker: That is very ingenious, but I doubt whether it would cover the point.

Mr. Mason: I will content myself by begging the Home Office to take notice of these increased dangers, particularly when these weapons are being transported by road and perhaps on British Railways. An accident might occur and fire brigades would be sent out to deal with that kind of danger. I hope that we shall hear from the Department whether fire brigades will receive instructions and, if necessary, training to deal with these dangers.
I am worried about recruitment. I notice from a recent leaflet issued by the Fire Brigades Union, which is entitled very appropriately, "Don't Gamble with Lives" and is extremely well presented, that in the last five years the number of fires attended in England and Wales has increased from 63,000 to 111,000, that is, has very nearly doubled, and that the total number of calls made upon the firemen for all purposes has risen over the last four years from 178,000 to 226,000.
It is worth while noticing also that the duties of firemen are on the increase. They have now to spend a great deal of

their time on fire prevention, inspection, administration, training, Civil Defence, and, of course, on "spit and polish." All this gradually eats up the working day. I am worried about the recommendation of the Select Committee on Standards of Fire Cover which advocates the manning of the second machine with only four men. I understand that the Home Secretary is now considering this recommendation.
I am very much against this retrogressive suggestion and I hope that he will turn it down. The majority of large fires require two fire engines and are being fought by undermanned crews. In 1956, 85 per cent. of such fires were fought by crews which were well below strength.
It would appear that the Select Committee has decided to bury its head in the sand on the main problem, that of making the fire service more attractive and building up recruitment, thereby ensuring that adequate fire cover will be guaranteed with machines fully manned. Surely the Home Secretary must visualise a storm of protests against this suggested undermanning. The House can imagine simultaneous calls being received, involving life and property. It might be that a house or even only a room would be lost through lack of trained firemen, but it might be a life. What, then, of the uproar that would legitimately follow such an incident? I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary, in his wisdom, will turn this recommendation down.
Finally, there is the question of replacing obsolete and in many cases inadequate fire stations. Very little progress seems to have been made in solving this problem, which is having an effect on recruitment. My own town, the County Borough of Barnsley, is urgently in need of a new fire station. Plans have been completed. Arrangements to build were in an advanced state but they had to be postponed, the 7 per cent. Bank Rate having played a part in that postponement.
In situations of this kind, even the few men enrolled in the service are not working as efficiently as otherwise they might be. When they are housed in out-of-date premises and inadequate stations frustration naturally develops and this does the service much harm. Therefore,


I should be obliged if the Minister could deal with the points which I have raised—instructions and advice and training to deal with accidents connected with nuclear weapons, the Home Office attitude to the suggested four-man appliance, and the programme of replacing obsolete premises and fire stations.

6.58 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for the manner in which he opened a very interesting debate, and for the opportunity to deal with a service to which all hon. Members have paid tribute. I would join in those tributes to the very fine work which is done by the fire service throughout the country. I fully endorse the statement which the hon. Member made about the Smithfield tire. I share his regret at any loss of life anywhere in the service, and particularly in two cases to which the hon. Member referred, at Smithfield, where I had the opportunity of seeing the fire and the service in operation, and at Oakwood, which is in my county—I am also very familiar with the unhappy disaster which occurred there.
The greater part of the Supplementary Estimate, £131,900, is for additions to the grants to local fire authorities in respect of their fire services. This sum has been greater than anticipated, for two reasons. The first is the pay rise granted in June. 1957, and the second is the increase in the strength of a number of brigades following a reduction in hours of duty from 60 to 56. I cannot give the hon. Member for Rossendale the exact comparative figures for which he asked, but the estimated increase in strength is about 300 for 1957. When the final figures are available, the total may be slightly higher.
As to the remaining sums in the Supplementary Estimate, £25,000 is required to cover superannuation, and relates to transfer values paid to fire authorities in respect of instructors who ceased to be employed at the Fire Service College and emergency training centres and who returned to their brigades.
There is a further sum of £13,400 in respect of compensation paid to owners of derequisitioned property under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and

this results from the more speedy de-requisitioning of emergency water sites. The total Supplementary Estimate, is therefore, £170,300 and, on the other side, there is a saving of £2,000, representing the salaries of two posts, one still vacant and one which was vacant for a short time. Therefore, we are asking for a net Supplementary Estimate of £168,300.
The hon. Member for Rossendale asked specifically whether any research was provided for in this Supplementary Estimate. The answer is not in the Supplementary Estimate. But as regards general research into fire-fighting problems, I am satisfied that, in the Joint Fire Research Organisation—which is jointly financed by the Government and the Fire Offices Committee—the country has a most efficient instrument of research, of which much use is made, both by the Government and by the local authority brigades, to solve the many problems which arise from time to time in fire fighting and fire prevention.
The hon. Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. R. Harris), and, I think, also the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), raised the question of breathing apparatus, to which particular publicity was given as a result of the coroner's recommendations after the inquest on the victims of the Smithfield fire. The facts are that before this recommendation was made, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, the members of which are appointed under the Fire Services Act from persons representing the interests of fire authorities, as well as persons who are employed as members of the brigades, very recently set up a committee, under the chairmanship of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services, to inquire into the operational use of breathing apparatus. This committee was set up at the request of members of the Advisory Council, in fact, before that particular recommendation was made at the inquest. It has already had one meeting, and it is going into the matter very thoroughly, but. I cannot, in advance of its report being received by the Home Secretary, anticipate what the result will be.
Both the hon. Member for Rossendale and the hon. Member for Barnsley raised the question of the instructions issued to fire services in the case of the crashing of an aircraft which might be


carrying a nuclear weapon. There is very little that I can add to what my right hon. Friend told the House in his reply to a Question on 4th February. In that reply, he stressed that, in the event of an aircraft crashing while carrying a nuclear weapon,
The risk from radiation, if any, would be small. Contamination of the ground, if it existed at all, would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the crash and could be dealt with in due course by special military teams.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 983.]
It has not, therefore, hitherto been considered necessary to give further instructions in this matter to the fire service. At the same time, my right hon. Friend has these instructions under continuous review, and while I cannot anticipate any reply that may be made in response to Questions put down for answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tomorrow on this topic, I think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in the course of his general review of the instructions given to civilian services, will most assuredly take note of any relevant information which may become available as a result of the recent accident in South Carolina. The instructions are, in fact, amended from time to time in the light of new knowledge and experience which has been gathered.
I should like to take this opportunity of clarifying the rôle of the Civil Defence services. The chance of accidental contamination—which would be from alpha rays—from the type of incident which the hon. Member raised, is very small indeed. We feel, therefore, that it would not be justifiable to equip and train for this hazard a service already equipped and trained for the much greater wartime hazard from gamma rays, and we do not think we should go beyond a few highly skilled and mobile military teams capable of dealing with this type of incident.

Mr. Mason: In view of the accident which has taken place in America, which confirms the fears which we have expressed about the results of accidents to nuclear-armed aircraft, does not the hon. Lady think that these instructions should now be reviewed and fresh instructions sent out to the fire services?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have already said that my right hon. Friend the Home

Secretary will, in the light of any relevant information and reports that come from that incident, review the instructions given to civilian services, but it would be premature to anticipate his decision before full reports have been received.
The hon. Members for Rossendale and Heston and Isleworth both raised the question of fire cover, and as the hon. Member for Rossendale said, the Select Committee on Fire Services recommended that a national review of standards should be undertaken in 1954. After the preliminary technical survey, the English and Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils, in 1956, set up a joint Committee to review the standards of fire cover. This Committee, after carefully considering the whole field of fire cover and conducting a very intensive statistical investigation into the problem of manning, reported to the Advisory Councils in May, 1957.
The Councils accepted most of its recommendations, particularly those which did not involve any great change in the present standards, but the Advisory Councils were unable to agree upon a recommendation relating to standards of manning. The Fire Brigades Union, as one hon. Member has rightly said, suggested, in a minority report, standards of manning which would result in a very large increase in the present manpower of the brigades. My right hon. Friend saw a deputation from the Fire Brigades Union in October, 1957, and has fully before him their case, which, as I have said, would result in very large increases in manpower establishment. In a matter of this kind, however, and particularly at the present time, it is important to weigh with extra care any case for increased expenditure.
As the Advisory Councils have disagreed upon this question—and they are very fully representative bodies—it falls to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide what action should be taken about promulgating the standards of manning. They are determined, as I am sure all hon. Members are, that the standards of efficiency of the fire service shall be maintained. There is no question about that, but, as the deliberations of the English and Scottish Joint Committees have shown, several views are possible. I do


not think that one can accept that, because not everybody on those Committees agrees with the Fire Brigades Union, those people—local authority representatives and the like—are any less conscious of their responsibilities or of the need for an adequate standard being maintained.
As there has been a difference of opinion, and as several views are possible about the right level of manning, this is a question into which my right hon. Friends must go very carefully and exhaustively. I can only say that they hope, in not too long a period—reasonably soon—to be able to issue guidance to the fire authorities in the light of their joint decision.
If I may turn now to the question of firewomen's pay, may I say that in October, 1957, the National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire Brigades asked the Secretary of State to approve increases in the pay of women members of fire brigades of from £23 to £60 a year, and the Council also proposed that the pay of firewomen should in future be related to that of firemen, instead of, as hitherto, to a certain grade of local government officer. The recommendations put forward were very carefully considered by the Secretary of State before reaching his decision, and may I say that there is no question of refusing approval of any increase in the pay of women members of brigades.
The disagreement is over the amount of the increase which ought to be granted. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth referred to the pay increase of 3·6 per cent. awarded to the firemen in June last year. The increase which has been asked for in respect of the fire-women is 13 per cent. at the maximum, whereas if the old basis had been retained and the new maximum made £445 instead of £475 a year, the increase would have been 6 per cent. and in closer relationship to the increase given to the firemen in June last year.
It may be suggested that this decision was an unjustifiable interference with collective bargaining, but the Fire Service

Act, 1947, gives the Secretary of State express power to refer back to the Council a recommendation of which he does not approve, which is what my right hon. Friend has done. In this case, reference back was justified in the light of the statement on Government policy made in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29th October, 1957, and it is fair to point out that the increase which would have resulted from the acceptance of the proposals would still have increased the maximum pay by 6 per cent.
The Secretary of State decided to take this step, reluctantly, in the light of Government policy. He has indicated to the Council that he will be prepared at an appropriate time to approve a proposal to relate directly the pay of firewomen to that of firemen. Meanwhile, he is prepared to consider the grant of increases which appear to him to be adequate in present circumstances and are in line with the reference back he has made to the Council.
I have endeavoured to deal with the various points raised by hon. Members and I am grateful to them for the manner in which they have dealt with what we in this House believe to be one of the very efficient services. When I say "very efficient", it was noticeable that in dealing with fire cover no hon. Member mentioned that, whereas one may be considering man for man, it is also fair to take into account equipment with equipment. We must recognise that with more modern, more efficient and more powerful equipment, with better and speedier notification, each man is more valuable by virtue of the increased number of, and more efficient, appliances he has behind him. It is fair to make this point when we are considering the numbers and efficiency of the brigades. I am grateful to hon. Members for their pronounced support of this Supplementary Estimate.

Question put and agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES

7.14 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The net amount of this Supplementary Estimate is £7,428,720, which is an increase of just over 1½ per cent. of the revised July Estimate of £477,876,365. This Supplementary Estimate is made up of excesses of £10 million, partially offset by savings of £2 million, mainly on hospital capital, general dental services and superannuation, and of £600,000 on appropriations in aid.
There are three main items in this excess exceeding £1 million apiece; that is to say, hospital revenue £5 million, pharmaceutical services £1,800,000 and grants to local health authorities £1,400,000. These items involve the convenient grouping of the various subheads which collectively compose them. I would add that the excess on hospital revenue of £5 million would have been £8 million but for the effect of a once-for-all saving of £3 million in the current year due to a change in the system of Exchequer advances to hospital authorities from a monthly to a weekly basis.
This increase for which I am asking the House today is accounted for largely by increases in prices and remuneration, for which no provision was made in the earlier Estimates. This price and remuneration increase is really part of the general point I made recently during the Second Reading debate on the National Health Service Contributions Bill. There is, of course, this year a special reason which contributes in part to the increase; that is to say, the effect of the Asian flu epidemic.
I should perhaps also add the general point that many items in the large National Health Service Vote relate to expenditure the course of which is inevitably difficult to predict. This Supplementary Estimate was prepared in January and submitted to the House early in February, and it represents the best estimate which could be made at that time. The latest expenditure returns suggest that at the end of the financial year there may conceivably be some net overall under-spending, but in view of the difficulties of predicting so much of

the expenditure we cannot even now be sure how much this may amount to.
I will now say a word about the first of the main items, the hospital revenue item. The total of this in the July Estimate was £335 million, split as to £290 million for non-teaching hospitals and £45 million for teaching hospitials. Of this £335 million no less than £215½ million was for the salaries and wages of medical, nursing and other staff directly employed in hospitals. Other large items comprised in the total were: provisions at £40 million, drugs, dressings and appliances at £22¼ million, and fuel, power and light at £25¼ million.
The earlier Estimates were based on costs current at the time when they were settled, but the hospital authorities were told that additional amounts would be made available, if necessary, to meet increases in remuneration following from Whitley awards and to meet increases in the prices of goods and services taking effect during the year.
What the House is now being asked to do is to vote additional money solely to meet such increased costs. I will indicate the analysis of the make-up of the figure of £8 million. The Whitley awards amount to over one-half at £4¼ million. price increases to £3 million, rates to £300,000, and increased National Health Service and National Insurance contributions to £400,000. That total of £8 million is reduced by the once-for-all saving of £3 million to which I have referred already, making a net addition of £5 million.
Of the major increase, the Whitley awards, two awards account for about £3¼ million out of a total of £4¼ million. Those are respectively the award to nurses, amounting to £2½ million, and the introduction, with effect from 1st October last, of a shorter working week for ancillary staffs, costing £¾ million.
I come to the second main item, the pharmaceutical service, about which there has already been a good deal of discussion on the various stages of the National Health Service Contributions Bill, which is still before the House. On this item, the estimated increase of £1,770,000 is based on the latest assumption of an outturn of 216 million prescriptions, instead of an estimate of 237 million, at an average cost, however, of 5s. 10d. per prescription instead of an


estimated average cost of just over 5s. 3d.
I should add that the expenditure on the pharmaceutical service is necessarily very unpredictable because, for example, of the effects of epidemics and of changes in prescribing practices due to the introduction of new drugs and so on; and for those reasons it is possible that the actual outturn may still be significantly different from that now assumed.
The general reason for the part of the Supplementary Estimate which relates to the pharmaceutical service is an increase in the average cost per prescription above that originally estimated, with a partial offset due to the falling off in the estimated number of prescriptions. Taking the average cost, the original estimate, as I have said, was just over 5s. 3d., but the increase in prescription charges to 1s. an item, with effect from December, 1956, had the effect of leading some doctors to prescribe larger quantities of drugs but at less frequent intervals. We would therefore expect an increase in the cost of prescribing and a reduction in the number of prescriptions, and that is exactly what has happened.
The average cost rose to just under 6s. 2½d. per prescription in August last, and in December, which is the last month for which figures are available, the figure was 6s. 1d.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that when doctors prescribe for longer periods in an effort to help their patients financially, there is more danger of waste and that it is more difficult to prescribe accurately over a longer period? Will he bear that problem in mind?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As I think the hon. Lady knows, the only circumstances in which I am encouraging general practioners to prescribe in larger quantities to last a longer time is in respect of chronic conditions, a subject in which the hon. Lady has displayed an especial interest in the House. I am not encouraging them to do it in ordinary cases, because, I agree with the hon. Lady, there are dangers of waste in that. That, no doubt, is one of the aspects of the matter to which Sir Henry Hinchliffe and his Committee are devoting their attention.
The 6s. 1d. figure is the figure which I gave to the House in the course of my speech on the Second Reading of the National Health Service Contributions Bill the other day. The Supplementary Estimate, which I am now commending to the House, assumes a figure of 5s. 10d. per prescription as the overall figure for the current financial year 1957–58.
I should add that another reason for the increase in the average cost is the availability of expensive new drugs which have come upon the scene and which were not previously available. Ever since the inception of the National Health Service, the number of prescriptions in any given financial year has tended to fluctuate. The Estimate for 1957–58 was based on a figure of 237 million which appeared to be the right figure in the context of that time. It now seems that the total number of prescriptions in this financial year will not exceed 216 million.
That is the figure which has been used in framing the present Supplementary Estimate. However, but for the influenza epidemic. the number of prescriptions might not have exceeded 204 million, instead of the 216 million which we now expect and the 237 million which was the basis of our Estimate. The reduction in that case would have been more than enough to offset the effect of the increased average cost of a prescription about which I have been speaking.
Having given that explanation of the reason for this part of the Supplementary Estimate, I must say that the Government are well aware of the problems of the mounting drug bill and, as the House knows, much action has already been taken in that regard. In addition, the question is currently under the review of an independent professional committee, the Hinchliffe Committee, to which I referred in answer to the hon. Lady's intervention a moment ago. I hope to receive an interim report from Sir Henry Hinchliffe fairly soon.
Finally, on the third main item of the Supplementary Estimate, the grants to local health authorities——

Mr. Albert Roberts: It used to be said that the cost of prescriptions in non-industrial areas exceeded that in industrial areas. Can the Minister tell the House whether that is now the case?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not know that it is, but it may be that I shall be able to form a more precise view in the course of our proceedings, in which case my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be happy to communicate it to the House.
Local health authorities are at present entitled to a 50 per cent. Exchequer grant on their net expenditure on health services under Section 53 (1) of the National Health Service Act, 1946, as amended by Section 7 of the Local Government Act, 1948. There are ten main services involved, each with a separate subhead, and a further miscellaneous subhead. The amount of the Supplementary Estimate for the local health authorities is £1,400,000 in respect of all those services taken together. The Supplementary Estimate in respect of the services is necessary, because both the autumn revised Estimate of the net expenditure of local health authorities in the current financial year and the actual net expenditure in 1956–57 were higher than had originally been expected. As a result, the advances for the current year have to be increased by £1,079,000 and the balance due for 1956–57 by £323,000.
The House will appreciate that I cannot give the same detailed analysis in respect of local authority health services as for the other services, because local health authorities are not subject to detailed control. Broadly, however, the increases are due to three factors: first, wage and salary awards: secondly, rises in prices, and thirdly, staff increases and expansions of the services. Examples which I would quote in this connection are the salary increases to nurses, midwives and health visitors, wage increases for domestic helps, and, in the mental health sphere, increased wages and prices, and the expansion of occupation centres for mental defectives.
With that explanation of the main items of which the Supplementary Estimate is made up, I hope that the House will agree that it is necessary—and, in the circumstances, even moderate—and will be prepared to vote it accordingly.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): We all welcome the further information that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given us in introducing this Supplementary Estimate, and

at any rate, hon. Members on this side of the House also welcome a very large part of the increase. We would not wish to challenge the increases which have taken place in respect of hospital authorities, or the modest increases in respect of local authority health services, although it would be more appropriate to discuss those matters when the full Estimates are presented later on.
Although my hon. Friends may wish to raise certain points, I want to follow up some of the points which have been raised in connection with the pharmaceutical services. It would be useful to the House if more information and elucidation were given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary. Many of us feel that we are being asked to make a judgment about the Supplementary Estimate—especially in regard to the pharmaceutical services—on very inadequate information and evidence. I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman exclusively; this situation has persisted for a long time. But it seems to me that if we are to decide whether or not we are getting reasonable value for our expenditure on the pharmaceutical services we ought to know far more about what is being done for the health of the nation in return.
All that we can do at present is to make some snap judgments from our own experience and the evidence that we have been able to gather, which may be misleading. A very considerable part of the pharmaceutical expenditure of the Health Executive Council in Newcastle is taken up by drugs used in the treatment of tuberculosis. The pharmaceutical expenditure for the last full financial year in the area was about £450,000, and on the best estimate that can be made, taking into account the number of patients under regular treatment and the average cost per patient—which can amount to about £1 a week—there is an expenditure of between £50,000 and £100,000 on tuberculosis treatment alone in Newcastle. Whatever view we may take as to whether prices for drugs can be reduced, none of us doubts for a second that the expenditure is well worth while, both in reducing hospital attendance and enabling many people to carry on with treatment while at work.
Unfortunately, however, we know far too little about the rest of the matter. We have no estimate of the cost of the treatment for bronchitis, which is a very high figure in many industrial areas. We do not know to what extent the drug bill represents useful work in the treatment of children, although we know that great advances have been made and that hospital beds are becoming available in children's units. All this is encouraging, but we know extraordinarily little about the effectiveness of the use of these drugs, and we should know if we are to make a fair judgment.
The Guillebaud Committee called upon the Ministry to improve its investigation units and establish a statistics department. I know that the Ministry has taken some action along those lines, but we have not yet seen much evidence of its work. I was glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was able to say that he was hoping that further information would be coming forward for the public. The Guillebaud Committee said:
we need to know more … about the nature and causes of difference of morbidity in different Hospital Regions; about the changing patterns in the use of drugs in the National Health Service, and also about their cost; about the incidence of charges on particular sections of the community …
I should be glad to know whether anything has been done on those lines.
Many general practitioners and probably the College of General Practitioners would be willing to help in collecting evidence about the value and efficacy of the treatments being carried out today. The only such investigation that I know of was carried out privately by a Mr. Martin who wrote a book called, "Social Aspects of Prescribing", an interesting book which, unfortunately, is rather out of date, since it relates to the position in 1951. Although the findings are of interest, we should like to have the views expressed brought more up to date.
One thing which the author says, which relates to the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) a few moments ago, is:
Expensive prescriptions occur most frequently in well-to-do areas.
It is important for us to know whether that is still true. He also says that it is a

sobering thought that the areas with the highest rates of morbidity as indicated by infant mortality are the ones with the cheapest prescriptions.
These are important social factors.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman might also bring out the interesting point that often where prescription unit cost is cheapest the number of visits to the doctor are most frequent.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was going to refer to the relationship between the cost item and the frequency of visits.
We need a great deal more information in order to make effective judgment. There are some matters about which we have the right to inquire. One is the question of price. A good deal has been said about this already, and I do not wish to go over the ground which has already been covered in other debates. It is a striking fact that we have had this considerable rise in the cost per prescription which coincided with the introduction of the additional Health Service charge; although I agree that, as one might expect, there has been some reduction in the total number of prescriptions. That has not wiped out the effect of the larger quantities.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point about the effect of the influenza epidemic, and the total number of prescriptions has for some time tended to vary, as we would expect. This must depend on the actual experience regarding health in the country over a period. One would expect variations. But this increase in the quantity prescribed is striking. Although, almost for the first time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to distinguish between the types of drugs which he wishes general practitioners to prescribe in larger quantities and those he does not, evidence from the medical profession shows that there is encouragement to increase the quantities prescribed and not purely in the limited scope to which the Minister referred. Even in that case one is doubtful whether this is a good practice, except, of course, as a means of saving the chronic sick and the elderly from having to pay extra charges. But the fact that they have to pay extra charges is the fault of the Government for imposing them. The answer is not necessarily to encourage the prescribing of larger quantities but to withdraw the charge.
No notice was taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his predecessors of the recommendations of the Guillebaud Committee, which did not recommend any increase in charges for prescriptions. Hardly was the ink dry on that Report than the Government proposed an increase, with the ill effects which we have seen. We cannot emphasise too strongly not only the waste which attends the prescribing of large quantities, but the danger of so doing. I do not think there is a single pharmacist in the country who would not say the same.
We know from experience what happens. There are few houses in the country where it would be impossible to find a number of bottles of medicine or packets of pills of one sort or another which are used by different members of the family or passed over the garden wall to be used by other families. This practice makes nonsense of effective medical control of states of illness. It is a cause of danger as well as being a waste, and it would be a good thing to recommend that at the end of a treatment the medicine left over should be disposed of by pouring it down the drain or by getting rid of it in some other way as rapidly as possible. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this matter. In our anxiety about what has happened, we are supported by a good deal of medical evidence. Not only are we wasting money by providing larger bottles of medicine and bigger packets of pills, but danger is being caused.
Ministers of Health come and go rapidly, and sometimes one is sorry for the reason. I am not sure which Minister it was, but not so long ago one announced the conclusion of an agreement with manufacturers regarding the prices of drugs, particularly the proprietary medicines. It was a very complicated agreement. The last Report of the Public Accounts Committee gives us cause for anxiety. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself suggested that we should not get the economy we had originally hoped to secure through that agreement. Many of us believe that we shall have to look again at the question of prices. There is no doubt that doctors should know far more about prices even than they do now after the modest efforts of the Ministry and the prescribers' notes which have been sent out.
We have to reach the state where manufacturers are required to put prices on any material they issue. I had sent to me a large bundle of advertising matter which had been received by a doctor in a particular fortnight; and of that mass about one-third included prices and the other two-thirds did not. I consider that some action must be taken about this. It has been suggested that doctors should have a standard card index of drugs and prices. It would not matter about having detailed prices, because the doctors would not be doing the work of the pharmacists in making up the actual accounts, but they would have some evidence of the average cost of the treatment of a patient for a week. Every doctor should possess some such evidence. It is wrong that the Government should pay twice for the cost of advertising, but, in effect, that is what happens today. The Treasury makes its concession for tax purposes, and a very considerable concession it is, and then that cost is bound to come into the total figure of drugs that the Government have to meet for the Health Service. In a sense, the Government pay twice. There again, there must be a very serious further review. We cannot accent the present position in which advertising is in effect encouraged, even though a very large part of it is to the detriment rather than for the benefit of the National Health Service.
While I am dealing with prices, I would refer to one further factor. I do not expect the Minister to give me an answer immediately about it. Nobody has been able to do so yet, and I am not very hopeful of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's being able to do so, although he might be able to find something to tell us before the end of the debate. We know that a considerable proportion of the proprietary medicines supplied today originates from the United States. Very valuable many of them are, yet we have to face the fact that included in the cost that we pay are quite heavy additional charges for patents and royalties which we should not have to pay if the drugs were produced in this country.
Different suggestions are made about how much this cost amounts to; I do not pretend to know. I only know that a very substantial proportion of the drugs and proprietary medicines commonly used comes from the United States, I do


not mean that they are necessarily manufactured there. Very often they are manufactured under licence in this country. Nevertheless, those external charges are imposed before the medicines can be sold here. That is a matter that we are bound to take note of, because it may affect substantially the total drug bill.
The Government should step in to see whether we can get more favourable terms. We remember the situation about penicillin. Many of us feel that we could reach more satisfactory agreements if the Government could step into the negotiations on these matters. I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say a word on this matter when he replies.
We all agree that the cost of drugs is under the control of the doctor and of no one else. The Labour Government, when instituting the Health Service, and subsequent Governments, have said that we must guarantee to the doctor freedom to prescribe what he thought was necessary for his patients, but there have been, by agreement with the profession, arrangements that in certain fields, for example in the proprietaries, doctors would not prescribe if there was any equivalent in our pharmaceutical list. The doctor still retained the right in the last resort to prescribe that special form of drug if he thought it necessary for his patient, knowing that he might be asked to explain why. The doctor still insists, and I think rightly, on his right to prescribe what is necessary for his patient.
If that is so, we have to face the unhappy fact, of which we have had experience, that there has been a very great deal of excessive prescribing over the years, of some of the antibiotics for example, for minor conditions for which they were not necessary which has endangered their use for the more proper purposes. We are facing acute problems in relation to this matter today simply because of the many costly drugs which have been used for conditions for which they were not necessary, although they might have had dramatic effects.
If we say that the doctor should be given complete freedom to prescribe what he thinks fit, there is the corollary that the doctor, while he should receive training about prescribing, must have all the necessary information. We are very

clever about saying what shall be put into a curriculum but not so clever in suggesting what shall be left out. The education of the doctor should help him to exercise his proper judgment.
How can that be done? We must consider whether the present set-up of the committee, which has done valuable work in the classification of drugs, is now adequate as a permanent part of our Health Service system. One wonders whether it is not necessary to have some even more thorough check on new drugs coming on to the market before they are made fully available for general use. This matter will have to be discussed with the medical profession, but there have been suggestions that there should be a kind of testing before the drugs are made generally available. This is obviously another matter for the committee to consider. I hope that the medical profession will join in and help in this matter.
We must not look at these problems too much in isolated and separate compartments. The real hope of getting stabilisation and reduction in the drug bill will come from the doctor becoming far more of a health educator and leader of a team, which ought to include the health visitor and others, of people who realise that their main job is health education just as much as treatment. They will try to effect some change from the assumption that the bottle of medicine and the packet of pills are the essential corollary to a visit to the doctor.
If progress is to be made in this direction, there must be some reduction of prices such as is now under consideration. We want greater impetus to group practice and health-centre work to encourage the doctor to use a more independent judgment. It is said that many doctors say, in explanation, that they are pressed to prescribe particular drugs. They are afraid that if they do not give the prescriptions their patients will go down the street to another doctor. I must say that in that attitude there is not an awful lot of trust shown in the professional standard. If we are to get a better standard, we must move away from the isolation in which too many doctors still work. That will come if we encourage this wider development of the group practice.
Can we not here bring in more actively the Central Council of Health Education? I should have thought that the right hon.


Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would have encouraged that, because I believe that at one time before he came to this House he was very actively interested in it. In any case, there is a need for a really vigorous drive for public education in health, and the proper use of drugs. None of us doubts for one moment the value of drugs. What we very sincerely doubt, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) has said on many occasions, is the wisdom of the way in which they are being used at present. We ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore to make some of the inquiries that we think important.
We think that the Ministry itself has a very real part to play here and that it must, as it were, break out of its confinement. I do not blame the Ministry, but it is true that it is too narrowly confined to the recovery side to tackle effectively the reasons, in a sense, for these high drugs bills. What is the Minister doing, for example, to get ahead more rapidly with the Clean Air Act? I believe that the more quickly he can get the clean air zones the less bronchitis we shall have and the lower, eventually, will be our bills for many of the drugs that are being continually poured out for such conditions.
In the same way, if the right hon. Gentleman could stir some of his laggard Ministerial colleagues who are denying us the opportunities to develop our sewerage schemes and to carry out house improvements, it might very well make a very real dent in our drug bill. We want to know what he is doing in all of these sectors—and I make no apology for, perhaps, widening the debate rather more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have expected, but if I had not been strictly in order I am sure that I would have been told.
I make a final suggestion which I am sure will appeal to the Minister. On this side, we have been worried—and I have asked Parliamentary Questions—about the developing costs of these tranquilliser drugs. Again, these drugs can be of undoubted value if properly controlled, but medical opinion is very much seized of the dangers of their general use, particularly if we are ever to use these drugs as widely as they are used in America. There are these anxieties and dangers,

and if we do not help in some way to control the use of these drugs through education of the public, the bill may go on expanding more and more and we may still be without the real, effective ways of judging just how much of the drug bill is valuable and how much is not.
I said that I would make a final suggestion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would welcome. We would, of course, secure a very considerable reduction in our bill for tranquillisers if we could only persuade the whole of Her Majesty's Ministers to resign at an early date and to give us the date. It would relieve the country very greatly and might even relieve many of Her Majesty's Ministers as well.

8.5 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Ballet: It would be very difficult indeed to challenge any of the specific items in this Estimate, and I certainly do not intend to do so. On the other hand, the fact that we have this big Supplementary Estimate confronts Parliament with a problem of priorities that is becoming ever more acute, and a problem as to whether or not, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) said, we are really getting full value for the money being spent on the National Health Service. As he said when at the start of his speech, these are matters that could more appropriately be discussed when we come to the main Estimates, and I assure hon. Members present that I intend to follow that precept.
I want to refer to four ways that have been suggested from time to time by which the rising cost of the Health Service can be kept in check, and to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether they are being carefully studied. More than six months have passed since the Select Committee on Estimates recommended that some sort of training on the finances of the National Health Service should be given to medical students. I believe that suggestion to be one of the greatest importance. It is something that must be done if we are to keep under any sort of financial control a Service which, after all, costs more than any single one of the fighting Services.
When hon. Members read the evidence given before the Committee they will


observe that not all the doctors who appeared before us agreed with this proposal. There were some who said. "Oh, health is something for which there is no price too high to pay." To that, I would say only that any price is too high if one has not the money. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to do what he can to implement that proposal.
Secondly, there is the question of closing some of the smaller hospitals when they become uneconomical. I understand that, from time to time, regional boards put forward proposals to close a hospital, in a group, perhaps, where they feel that the patients can be properly looked after in the remaining hospitals. Obviously, the savings resulting from such measures are real, the economy produced is a genuine one, and I should like to be reasurred that such proposals, when made, are not lightly set aside.
Thirdly, is my right hon. and learned Friend entirely satisfied that we are doing all we can to educate the public in preventive measures? I am not here talking of the use of drugs and so on, but of ordinary common-sense preventive measures. I ask him, in particular, because one of the reasons given for this Supplementary Estimate is the influenza epidemic Few things were heralded so widely or for so long than was the arrival of that epidemic in this country. Its progress from the East across the world was followed almost from seaport to seaport until it arrived here. It is rather disappointing that it should, none-the-less, have taken such a toll.
While there may be a great deal of controversy, and a number of views on whether or not it is desirable to televise major operations, surely there can be no two opinions that any time that television can devote to a little homely advice about not going into crowded trains when one has a bad cold, about not going into places of entertainment when one feels that a fever is coming on, would be well spent. I suggest to the Minister that millions of pounds might be saved on the Estimates if people could be educated to use just a little common sense in looking after their own health.
Lastly, is my right hon. and learned Friend entirely happy that the general practitioner service is working as it

should? After all, the expensive thing in the Health Service is the hospital service. Are we sure that as many cases as possible are treated by the general practitioners in the patients' own homes? I know that this is a very big question, and I am not asking for a reply tonight, but it is very much in my mind that one of the radical steps that could be taken to prevent Supplementary Estimates of this nature, and to keep down the cost of the Health Service, would be to try to ensure that as many people as possible were treated in their own homes, without having to go to hospital.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I should like to refer to one point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) in his interesting speech, and that is his suggestion about the closure of some small hospitals. I am in complete agreement with him, because small hospitals are not economic and, in many cases, are not efficient. I shall be glad when special hospitals are abolished and are fused for operational purposes with general purpose hospitals.
I should like to extend what he said. Not only do we want the closure of small hospitals and the fusion of hospitals, but we also want a greater fusion of hospital management committees. In each case we have not only a management committee but also staff, including financial officers, engineers and supply officers, responsible for purchasing. In the regional hospital board to which I am attached there are two or three management committees with only three or four hospitals in each. Not only is that uneconomic but it tends to be inefficient, because when we have a group of hospitals it is very much better to centralise special departments in one of these hospitals and not to let every small hospital have a department with inpatient beds for every specialty.
The debate has been largely directed to the question of pharmaceutical products. I have no regret whatever that more is being spent on drugs, assuming that it is being well spent. The public insists on having medicines, and it is very much better that those medicines should be ordered by a doctor who understands what he is doing than be bought straight from a chemist. I do not


think that this increase is such a disaster. It is fashionable to blame the drug houses for everything that has happened, but I believe that the cost of the standard drug has not risen within the last few years in anything like the same proportion as have many other things which we use.
It must be admitted, too, that the drug houses spend a good deal of money on research. I think that they could fuse their research departments usefully and that money could be saved in that direction, but I am convinced that money must be spent on research into pharmaceutical products and that we are getting benefit from it.
Perhaps these drug houses advertise too much. I have not seen a patient since 1945, when I returned to this honourable House, but I still receive samples—I will not say daily, but at frequent intervals—of different drugs from the various drug houses. To some extent that is regrettable, but it has another side to it, because a busy general practitioner who is seeing a large number of patients, many of them with the same disease, may lose interest in his work unless he is able to try out new methods of treatment. These new drugs which are coming out increase the general practitioner's interest and keenness and, therefore, the quality of his work.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am interested in my hon. Friend's remarks, many of which I agree with, but I am sure that he agrees that the drug houses should state prices on their documents.

Mr. Hastings: I agree entirely, and I also agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that medical students ought to be taught to some extent the relative costs of the drugs which they propose to order.
Nevertheless, I believe that it is inevitable that we shall spend more money in the National Health Service on drugs. There are two reasons for this. First, although the maximum age to which people live is probably not increasing appreciably, there are many more people over the age of 70. When people reach old age they are more subject to disease and need more treatment. Moreover, the object of treatment is not necessarily in every case to cure. It may be to make the patient comfortable and to relieve symptoms. Because we have an ageing

population it is inevitable that we shall need more medicine.
In addition, much more can be done with drugs today. When I was a student there were no drugs which would kill germs without first killing us. Now we have the large group of antibiotics. It is true that germs are beginning to get the better of them, because they are themselves becoming immune to many of our antibiotics, but we are reacting by discovering others. Among these drugs are the very valuable ones used for the treatment of tuberculosis which have been responsible to a large extent for the reduced mortality from this disease. For these reasons we shall use more drugs in the future, apart from the fact that research is constantly being carried out and new uses for drugs being found.
I agree that we should urge on doctors care in prescription and care not to use the proprietary drugs while others which are equally good are available. But I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should be a little careful about how doctors are approached on this question. One doctor whom I saw recently told me that he had had two visits from people from the Ministry urging him to reduce his drug bill, and he resented it very much indeed. I have asked other doctors about it, and they have told me that they have had visits on the same lines, but they rather liked it and did not resent it at all. There are those two sides to the question. The important thing is that the approach by officers of the Ministry should be as tactful as possible in order to obtain the best results.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: I have been most interested in the debate, though it is a subject on which I am no expert. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), who certainly widened the debate and ranged over many subjects, even suggesting that more should be done to implement the Clean Air Act. If we are to widen the debate to that extent, there are many things we could suggest. I hope that we shall one day have a Government having the courage to pass a law making it compulsory for everyone to have a bath every day; that would do as much as anything——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a little beyond this Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) went to the periphery of the bounds of order. I hope that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) will not go further.

Mr. Harris: I would try to keep within the bounds of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I wish to raise the question of drugs and support what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, said about the prices of some of them. This is a very important matter. A little time ago I wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health about the price of a drug called Terramycin. The answer which my hon. Friend very kindly gave me does not, I am afraid, entirely satisfy me. A pharmacist of my acquaintance drew my attention to this particular drug and sent me one of the actual cartons showing that it contained 100 tablets. He told me that these hundred tablets cost £14 10s. This raises many questions, the first of which is this. What control is the Minister able to exert over the drug houses which produce drugs of this sort?
I am not in any way trying to comment on the use of any drugs which may be necessary for the saving of life, and I am certainly in no position to say whether there is any drug other than Terramycin which is as effective. But, if a drug like this is to be produced, 100 tablets of which cost about £14 10s., one wonders whether the Ministry is able to exercise any control over the size of carton in which they are distributed. The situation may well arise—it has, in fact, arisen, my pharmacist friend tells me—of a drug like this being prescribed and the chemist having to obtain it. A certain number of tablets may be used and the rest may remain on the chemist's shelf, and may, I am told, be there for a very long time without being used. In his reply to me, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that about twenty tablets would be the normal number in one prescription. Even that makes it a very expensive prescription, something in the region of £3, although my hon. Friend said that it would, in fact, cost 47s. 6d., this amount including chemist's dispensing fee and a sum to cover overhead expenses. However, one-fifth of £14 10s. is more than 47s. 6d.
Can the Minister control the size of the package in which the drug houses distribute these things? When one considers the terrific barrage of advertising which goes out, the matter assumes even greater importance. I do not say that this advertising is entirely wrong; obviously, there must be some advertising by drug houses, though I can name one particular American firm which reckons to circularise all the doctors in the country twice a week. It may be done only by postcard, but it seems quite fantastic that any firm should reckon to reach each doctor in the country twice a week by any form of circularisation.
Inevitably, with this tremendous pressure upon doctors, they will occasionally prescribe a drug which is, perhaps, a little more expensive or they may prescribe in a quantity slightly greater than is necessary. Obviously, doctors being hopelessly overworked in many places, there is always a tendency to prescribe for a little more than is necessary, perhaps in order to prevent a patient having to come back.
I have been informed that there is a tendency today for doctors to prescribe for larger amounts than in the past. For instance, a liquid medicine which used to be prescribed in what were known as doctors' bottles, 6 oz. bottles, are very often prescribed now, according to my pharmacist friend, in 40 oz. bottles. Has the Ministry any control over things like that?
I hope that it will be possible to have the advice of well known and reputable British firms who exercise restraint in these matters. Their advice on how to control the activities of what are, usually, American firms with high pressure sales methods would be useful. I do not altogether condemn those methods. I have an American pharmaceutical company in my constituency, Parke Davies and Co., a very reputable company, which has progressed steadily and gradually over the years; but there are other firms which are bringing to this country the methods they use in the United States. One firm which I know in the United States has travellers on the road and reckons to get round to every doctor once a week. If there is to be that sort of personal visit once a week in this country, life will become intolerable for doctors.

Colonel Tufton Beamish: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he realise that a great many doctors like these visits and that, if a doctor should say he does not want to be called on again, he will not be called upon?

Mr. Harris: I am glad to hear that and to think that some notice is taken of what the doctors say in these matters; but, from what I know of some of the firms, I am not sure that they would be taken off the list quite so readily as that.
In the letter I received from the Parliamentary Secretary, he told me that information and advice on the use of these drugs has been made available to doctors in the British National Formulary and in the Prescribers' Notes. Do the Formulary and the Notes put the prices of these drugs against them? Perhaps they do; I do not know. If some assurance can be given by the Minister on this very important point, I should be very glad. I know that it would give some reassurance also to chemists, many of whom may be doing extremely well out of it but who, nevertheless, are genuinely desirous of keeping the cost of the Health Service down as much as possible.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. James Harrison: My contribution to the debate takes the form of a very short question, but it is a question which ought to attract the serious notice of the Minister. If he can contribute towards an answer, I for one would be much obliged.
I wish to refer to the increased cost of our hospital services as a result of the universal treatment that is offered. Any person who is in these islands, or who comes to these islands especially for hospital treatment, can obtain treatment free under the National Health Service.
Can the Minister give us something rather more than the stock reply to this question? Whenever we raise this matter we are told of the administrative cost of making the service selective. We are told of the difficulty of limiting it to residents in this island and those people whose countries offer reciprocal services and give our citizens the privilege of free treatment in their hospitals.
Can the Minister tell us what schemes he and his officers have examined when

they say that the administrative cost would exceed by far the amount saved by the exclusion of people whose countries do not offer similar facilities and who are non-resident in these islands? The premise of these arguments is usually that it would be a good thing if we could limit the services and thereby save considerable money, but that to do that we should have to introduce an administrative scheme of selectivity that would cost more than the amount which might be saved by its introduction.
I have never heard any of these schemes described. I wonder if the Minister would indicate some of the schemes that he has examined and tell us where the extra cost would fall if a scheme were adopted. That would help us to understand the position and to argue the question should it be raised in our constituencies.

8.32 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: There are two points that I want to raise on this Supplementary Estimate. They are on the general lines that the debate has pursued. I wonder whether the Minister can say something about the general plan of expenditure on the development of mental hospitals.
I was very pleased to hear on my last visit to my constituency that, at last, our local mental hospital, The Garlands, is getting very much needed improvements. Nobody is more pleased about that than myself. On the other hand, looking at the other point of view, in answer to a Question that I asked the Minister a week or two ago about the development of psychiatric units in general hospitals, he told me that about 12 to 15 psychiatric units in general hospitals had been initiated over the last two or three years.
We all know that because of our restricted resources we cannot do everything. We cannot spend the money in every way that we would like. I think it is generally accepted now that the idea of psychiatric units attached to general hospitals and the beginning of small psychiatric units nearer to the community are more in line with modern thought.
I wonder, therefore, whether the Minister can tell us something about the policy of development and expenditure in this respect. Will the money be spent more on these older hospitals, or will he let them go to some extent, realising that


they have had their day, and make a drive forward on a newer line? We all know how thought has changed very much in this respect over the last two or three years, and it is changing rapidly at present.
Three or four years ago it was the wish of many hon. Members to hear the Government bring forward a policy for building more and more mental hospitals. Now, many of us look forward to the day when the Minister can introduce a policy for the demolition of the older hospitals and the building of newer units more in line with modern thought. I do not expect my hon. Friend to develop this discussion in any great detail tonight, but can he give us some indication of his views about it when he replies to the debate?
Whether my right hon. and learned Friend is spending the money on the older hospitals or on the newer units, I urge that the money should be spent especially on admission wards and observation wards. I do not want to go into a discursion on admission procedures and that sort of thing, but the most distressing stories we hear from former mental hospitals patients, such as ladies with nervous depression who may go as voluntary patients for treatment and who, because of lack of accommodation and lack of facilities, have to be put in a ward with chronic and deteriorated patients, so that whatever treatment was given, the surroundings in which they find themselves are apt to do them much more harm than good.
The second point which I want to discuss has already been mentioned—the intractable problem of drugs, a subject on which I made some comments in the debate ten days ago. As a former general practitioner, I am the first to maintain that doctors must always have the right to prescribe what they like. None the less, doctors are the same as other people, very susceptible to pressure by suggestion and pressure by advertising.
In discussions about advertising with representatives of drug companies and others, one has to admit that a measure of advertising is both legitimate and necessary, with a view to introducing doctors to new drugs, in the way about which we have heard. The visits of repre-

sentatives from drug firms are among the better features of this advertising. When I was working in general practice, before becoming a Member of Parliament, three years ago, I always welcomed the visits of these gentlemen. I found them quite inoffensive and they never used high pressure methods. They were always reasonable and I welcomed their visits for discussion with a view to hearing about newer methods and drugs which had been developed.
However, one wonders whether some of the more florid forms of literature which come through the post are really necessary and whether they are not wasteful. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) referred to an American firm which sent out a small brochure to doctors twice a week. He said that it might be a postcard. I can assure him that it was considerably more than a postcard. I know the firm, because I have received these things myself. Some of the brochures are tasteful and expensive half-tone publications. One wonders whether that sort of thing is necessary.
One wonders whether the kind of publication which I received only a couple of days ago through the post, and which I now show to the House, is really necessary. It has been most expensively prepared and contains many pages of coloured advertising of a number of new products. It was sent to me, although the last time I had occasion to practise was three years ago. Therefore, in my case, it is a complete waste of money. One cannot help thinking that expenditure of this kind is running to waste and obviously coming out of the money which we vote in the House for the National Health Service. We give the drug firms fair play when we discuss these matters in the House and I think that they should get together in the national interest and arrive at some self-denying ordinance in advertising so as to ensure that this immense amount of money is not squandered on sending these highly-coloured and expensive publications to doctors.
There still remains the main question of what is to be done to tackle the mounting drug bill. Various suggestions have been made and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) has said that by various methods doctors should be perpetually reminded of prices. He is more optimistic


than I am about the economy-mindedness of my profession. I do not think that we can really remind people of prices effectively unless we have some sort of sanction over them to keep them up to scratch. Then, if we adopt a method involving sanctions we shall get into trouble straight away.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) mentioned the possibility of visits from the Ministry's officers. Some doctors take those well. Others do not take them particularly well, and again we should run the risk of creating resentment and trouble among the doctors. A third suggestion is that we should teach doctors something about economy and prices and put that subject into an already overcrowded curriculum. It is no use putting these things into a medical student's curriculum, however, unless he knows that he will have an examination at the end. I question whether he would seriously suggest that before qualifying a medical student must undergo an examination on the prices of drugs. Unless there is an examination, any amount of trying to teach medical students about prices will be ineffective. I can assure the House from memories of my own student days that if there is no examination they will be elsewhere when the lectures take place.
I suggest, therefore, that the drug firms might get together and devise some self-denying ordinance on advertising expenditure. I would go a little further and suggest that the Minister might go into competition with the drug people in a little advertising on his own account, by drawing the attention of doctors to the cheaper, simpler pharmacopeia preparations which are identical with the proprietary medicines.
It is useless to do that, however, unless the Minister does it in an attractive and arresting way. I do not think that the average ministerial circular would compete very much with a publication such as the one which I now have in my hand. If the Minister will publish attractive brochures and leaflets periodically to circularise among doctors, spending a little on typography and layout so as to to make the presentation attractive and easy to read, they might well yield him excellent dividends.

8.45 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I wish to continue this debate for a few minutes only, in order to press a point about drugs. I agree with every word said by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson). I think he stated a magnificent case temperately.
Obviously, we cannot prevent doctors from prescribing drugs that save life or preserve health, but my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) was quite right in the tribute which he paid to all the modern discoverers of drugs, who get a little bit of money for what they have discovered, as compared with the manufacturers and exploiters of drugs, who get much more for the brain-child of some eminent scientist, or the advertisers, who probably get more than the manufacturing druggists for bringing these drugs to the notice of the medical profession. I do not think we can do very much about that. I do not think that we can build a shield round the medical profession to protect it from this barrage of publicity that the manufacturing druggists impose upon them.
I have always thought that the chemist himself had a claim. He has asked for a long time that he should be able to substitute the pharmaceutical equivalent for any prescription, but no doubt the medical profession would be up in arms if we gave that privilege to the practising chemist.
There is something which the Minister can do. It is now three or four years since the Select Committee on Estimates examined the National Health Service and pointed out, among other things, that there were manufacturing druggists or chemists who were getting their working capital back within four years, and who were making an average annual profit of about 25 per cent.—and this after all the apparatus of advertising, which has to be paid for ultimately by the National Health Service.
At that time, the Ministry was in consultation with the manufacturing chemists, and I would hope that by now we have narrowed the field of difference between the Minister and private enterprise in the drug manufacturing industry. No one denies that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Having visited the factories of the manufacturers of some of these


American so-called ethical products, I can say that they are manufactured under ideal conditions. The doctors are satisfied because they know that the drugs they obtain from one of the reputable firms are all that they purport to be, and that they are manufactured under the best of conditions. All that is worthy of the hire of the labourer. What the Select Committee found three years ago was that the labourer was making an unreasonable charge for his labour, and I think we have a right to demand from the Minister that he should exercise some control on the profits made by these manufacturers.
At the same time, I would press upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman another point which has arisen casually and incidentally in the debate. It should be possible in time for British manufacturing chemists to take over the manufacture of products now made by the Americans. There was a time when, penicillin, having been invented in this country—Fleming was one of the greatest men of our century, and there are hundreds of thousands of people in the world today who owe their lives to him—it was manufactured in America, and we were paying a royalty year after year from the National Health Service to American druggists for a drug invented by a great Englishman.

Mr. E. G. Willis: A great Scotsman, surely?

Dr. King: I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what steps he is taking to take over from the Americans the manufacture of British products.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I wish to make one comment on what was said about charging for the services administered for the benefit of people from abroad. I quite agree with the view that has been expressed that this is both desirable and needed, but I think it would be most difficult to do. I think, however, my right hon. Friend recognises that the number of questions addressed to us as hon. Members of this House, and indeed to him, indicate that among the general public there is a good deal of misunderstanding about this issue. It is the kind of thing that can easily arouse a hearty roar of approval at any meeting.

I hope he will find it possible to get some more definite information about the difficulty and the cost than he has yet been able to give the House.
My only other point concerns Wales. The figures indicate that the miscalculation in respect of expenditure in Wales was proportionately rather more serious than in England. I wonder to what extent as regards teaching hospitals, if at all, this is due partly to the antiquated nature of the hospital in Cardiff, which involves a great deal of capital and revenue expenditure each year. The maintenance expenditure is necessarily heavy owing to the age of the building, which has given great service but obviously should now be replaced.
My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that one of his predecessors promised us in the relatively near future one of the new hospitals as a teaching hospital in South Wales, the first to be built since the war. I would like to know whether even the current expenditure on the maintenance of existing buildings, apart from other reasons, indicates that this matter should now receive his earnest attention. We need this hospital for other reasons also. Cardiff has established in respect of its population an enviable reputation, and a new teaching hospital would be a facility which would give greater opportunities to the large number of young people in South Wales who are entering the practice of medicine.
I hope my hon. Friend will find it possible to comment on this point when he replies to the debate.

8.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): When my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health opened the debate he made the case for the Supplementary Estimate in general terms, and I can best serve the House by dealing with some of the points of detail which have arisen during the debate. To a great extent it has turned on the question of drugs: how we can effectively control the size of the drug bill, and similar matters. I will answer a number of hon. Members at the same time by dealing with the question in some detail. First, I will outline the measures we take now to limit the size of the drug bill.
We try to encourage doctors to be economical and we keep them cost-conscious by means of letters from the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, through comparative lists of prices supplied to them by the Ministry, through the British National Formulary, through Prescribers' Notes also issued by the Ministry, and through arrangements whereby a doctor can compare the cost of his prescribing with that of his colleagues.
There are also arrangements under which the Ministry's regional medical officers visit doctors, where necessary, to inquire into possible excessive prescribing. Eventually, reference may be made for formal investigation by the local medical committee, and the Minister has power, in appropriate cases, to direct that money be withheld. Of course, that is exceptional and only in the last resort.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) referred to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates that the Minister should urge on medical schools that medical students should be required to satisfy examiners about their knowledge of the financial structure of the National Health Service and the costs of the treatment for which they may be responsible. That recommendation is under active consideration, and I can say that earlier approaches have been made by the Ministry's Chief Medical Officer to deans of medical schools on the subject of instruction on economic prescribing. This is an aspect of the cost of prescribing which no doubt will be brought under review by the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Hinchliffe.
The prices of proprietary preparations which were not, in the view of the Cohen Committee, therapeutically superior to the standard preparations are now regulated by a voluntary price regulation scheme which has been agreed for a trial period with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries. The latest figure for 1956 of the proportion of preparations in this category is 91 per cent., but I shall have a word or two more to say about that in a minute.
The question of giving advice to doctors is extremely thorny and "sticky." No one can reasonably

expect a doctor, simply to oblige the Treasury, to utilise the methods of treatment appropriate to a generation ago. Naturally, he will wish to use the latest aids and devices known to science, and he would not be a proper doctor if he did not. Having said that, however, there is the other aspect that it is possible to over-prescribe, all with the very best intentions, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) said.
It is reasonable to assume that the aggregate effect of these measures has been to help to keep the costs of the drug bill below the level which they might otherwise have reached. We shall set considerable store by the Report of the independent professional committee under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Hinchliffe, which is looking into all this.
I said that I would say a word or two about manufacturers' prices. In 1953, we began a systematic investigation of manufacturers' prices and in 1955 we concluded that prices of standard drugs and preparations were reasonable. This conclusion was based on an examination of costs and profit margins which may be renewed from time to time. On proprietary preparations which, in the Cohen Committee's view, are not superior to the standard preparation, long and difficult negotiations with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry led to the Government's acceptance of three years' trial of a scheme under which manufacturers voluntarily accepted regulation of their prices.
This scheme began to come into operation on 17th June, 1957, and has so far been applied over nearly 70 per cent. of the total field, which covers 4,000 preparations produced by nearly 200 different manufacturers. Its application has so far resulted in 237 price reductions at a very substantial saving to the Exchequer. Naturally, this is a process which we want to see continue.
In view of the importance which hon. Members have attached to this question, I should say a word about the three main provisions for regulating prices. Under the first, the price in the United Kingdom shall not exceed that which the product commands in adequate volume in overseas markets in face of international competition. The second consideration, which applies when a drug is not exported


in significant quantities, provides that if an identical non-proprietary standard drug is available in the United Kingdom the price of the proprietary shall not exceed the price of the standard drug. Thirdly, if it is impossible to apply either of these two provisions, a maximum price should be determined by using a detailed formula, comprising an ingredient allowance based upon recognised trade prices and processing and packaging allowances according to a schedule covering different types of drugs. I should add that the scheme also provides, in special cases, that where a manufacturer prefers this course, a fair and reasonable price may be negotiated with the Health Departments.
We are also inquiring into prices of basic drugs, such as antibiotics and hormones, which are important basic ingredients used in both standard and proprietary preparations. Investigations in this field were necessarily held up whilst we were negotiating on proprietary preparations because of the close interaction between the two fields. They are now being resumed.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East made a general plea for a more detailed breakdown of the drug bill and information as to the way in which various conditions were responding to the use of drugs. He probably had in mind such a condition as tubercular meningitis which, once uniformly fatal, is now curable. Indeed, the morbidity and mortality of adult tuberculosis has fallen dramatically over the past ten years because of effective drug treatment.
On the other hand, as at present organised—as the hon. Member well knows—it is difficult for us to isolate these items in the drug bill. I shall certainly bear in mind what he has said about this matter because, if it is possible for us to enlarge our knowledge by some such operation as he suggests, we will certainly consider doing so, but for the present I cannot say more than that we will give the matter consideration.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman follow up my suggestion that he might contact the College of General Practitioners to see what help it might give in any special inquiries into diseases such as bronchitis?

Mr. Thompson: We would certainly see whether its experience and knowledge could be of help to us in that respect.
The hon. Member went on to talk of the danger of prescribing large quantities. In all good temper, I must say that I take leave to doubt whether the removal of the prescription charge would make any difference to the formidable arrays of medicine which accumulate on family shelves. I do not think that it would make the slightest difference.
The hon. Member went on to ask what was the value of the royalty element on foreign drugs imported into this country in large quantities. As he surmised, that is a matter which I certainly cannot answer "off the cuff", if, indeed, it can be answered at all. It involves a complicated statistical exercise in trying to separate the drug royalty element from all the other royalty elements which we pay to foreign countries, but I shall look into the matter and see whether it is possible to get even an approximation of that kind of information.
The hon. Member referred to tranquillisers. We have no general power to control the marketing of a drug in relation to its efficacy or safety, but in their own interests manufacturers do not introduce drugs without a preliminary test and trials. The Health Service Act provides that a general practitioner shall prescribe proper and sufficient drugs and medicines. Our advice is that this gives no authority to exclude a class of drugs from supply under this service.
As regards the question of limitation to prescription, the dangerous drugs legislation applies to specified drugs of addictions, but there is not sufficient evidence on which the Home Office can bring tranquillisers under this kind of control. The Pharmaceutical Society has recommended chemists not to supply transquillisers without prescriptions and such a recommendation would command special weight.
Information about types of tranquillisers and the advice available as to their use and cost was given to National Health Service doctors in March, 1957, in an edition of Prescribers' Notes. For the future, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked the Poisons Board to consider the general question of the need for controlling the supply of drugs which may be harmful if taken in excess, but it was said that an early report could


not be expected and it is likely that further control would require fresh legislation.
Arising out of the matters quoted by certain hon. Members about the misuse of a particular proprietary tranquilliser, the Department is consulting the Home Office about whether reference to the Poisons Board of bromvaletone and carbromal would be desirable in the light of such general information as is now available.
One matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman with which I have not dealt is the disparity in the prescribing returns as between industrial and other areas. There are unexplained differences in the cost of prescribing per person between apparently similar areas, which apply to industrial areas as well as others. There has been no fundamental change since the increase in the charge. It is true to say that prescribing is less expensive in rural than in industrial areas, but no such generalisation is true as between industrial and other urban areas. The figures are being studied by the Hinchliffe Committee.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the hon. Gentleman do anything about the idea of developing a special standard of price indications for general practitioners? That proposal is being aired at present.

Mr. Thompson: I will look into that.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East referred to several matters. I have dealt with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates, but he referred to the question of economies arising from the closure of small hospitals and matters of that kind. I am glad to say that quite a number of small hospitals have been closed over recent years, 70 or 80 in England and Wales in the past five years.
The small hospitals are, however, providing an essential local service and they attract much local interest and support. It is not infrequently the case that while the economic and medical arguments for closing a small unit may be powerful, or indeed overwhelming, as soon as they are put into practice, an immense volume of local opposition develops and finds political support in this House. However, we are alive to any possibilities of economy and a more rationalised system

of working through the closing of small outlying units that are difficult to staff and otherwise inefficient.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the influenza epidemic. It was his view that as we knew that this epidemic was coming—its progress across the world was dramatic and well advertised—would it not have been practicable to take forestalling action rather than to deal with the cases when they actually arose? It would not have been practicable to inoculate 48 million people, which is roughly what we should have had to do, within the time available. We could not have made enough vaccine, and we could not have had enough doctors to give the necessary shots within the time. I cannot think it would have been justifiable to devote to it such a large percentage of our medical effort, although the alternative was that we had to accept epidemic when it came.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallet: My point was not connected with vaccination or inoculation, but with the education of patients, telling them on television, and so forth, the simple rules by which one avoids getting this infection.

Mr. Thompson: As a matter of fact, an effort was made in that direction and we received a number of angry calls from doctors who said that they objected to the Ministry of Health setting itself up as doctor and telling patients what steps they should take to meet a not very specifically defined complaint.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) had a question on the prices of drugs with which I hope I have dealt in my general reference to the subject earlier. In particular, he asked whether we could control the size of packages. My advice is that we cannot, more particularly in the case of American drugs.

Mr. R. Harris: On the question of prices, I understand from my hon. Friend that there have been 237 price reductions. Is that out of the total of 4,000 possible, since he said that there were 4,000 drugs? What special steps are taken in the case of a drug like Terramycin, which is a monopoly? I was at a loss to understand what a trade association can do in getting restriction or reduction in prices.

Mr. Thompson: Inquiry into these prices is still going on. Although I mentioned the figure 237, which my hon. Friend correctly quoted, that is not the whole story. We have not stopped there. On the particular point about terramycin, I could not tell my hon. Friend whether there is any alternative supply. If the doctor chooses to prescribe this drug we cannot stand between him and his patient. I agree that if we can provide the means of a more economical source of supply, it would be very desirable indeed.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison) had a point about what he thought was the indiscriminate admission to hospital of patients of foreign origin not resident in this country, as the result of which beds were taken up and expense was devoted to the care of those patients. The hon. Member asked me, I think, what force lay in the argument that the administrative procedures necessary to stop this were so complicated that it was not worth while to do so.
I would make two replies to that. The first is that one of the administrative procedures is already at work, and, I think, functioning satisfactorily. The immigration officials at the ports have instructions to resist as far as possible, people coming here whom they are able to show, or whom they have reason to think have come here specifically for the purpose of going into hospital to have an operation. I am sure that the hon. Member will be pleased to know that.
The rest of the argument probably applies more particularly to the general practitioner service but is also relevant to the hospitals, to which the hon. Gentleman wished to confine it. I think that he will see—and this is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), also—that if we are to erect a nationality bar to these people, someone has to do it for us, and that, in practice, will be the doctor, who will have the duty of satisfying himself that various patients coming to his surgery are foreigners. We take the view that that is putting an additional, unsought and unwelcome duty on the doctor, and that, if it is performed efficiently, it will make the treatment of our own people more difficult than it is now.

Mr. Gower: I certainly did not advance any argument that was at all contrary to what my hon. Friend has

just said, but I did suggest that public opinion obviously demands a rather clearer answer on this subject than has yet been given.

Mr. Thompson: Perhaps my references, and my hon. Friend's intervention, may enlighten public opinion. I hope so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) asked a number of questions about the future of psychiatric medicine—about which he has been asking Questions recently—which, I think, went a little outside of the scope of this debate. It is a fascinating subject but, with great respect, I would have thought that the proper time to raise it would be during a general debate on the Estimates which, no doubt, we shall have before long.
I know that hon. Members for Scotland are anxious to have a debate——

Miss Margaret Herbison: Not now.

Mr. Thompson: We seldom hear them admit defeat. However that may be, they must admit that I did my best to get them into the debate.
I have no intention of minimising an increase of even the 1½ per cent., which we are asking on our original Estimate of £477 million, but it has been shown by my right hon. and learned Friend that most of this arises from higher wages and salaries and increased prices. Consequently, the increase in real terms is smaller, although, of its nature, the Service is an expanding one, because we have an increasing population, old people are living longer, and drugs are getting more costly.
Clearly, the National Health Service will be a major beneficiary if the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to stabilise prices prove successful, and, although we need to look with the greatest care at such a great consumer of public money as is this Service, and not pass lightly any demand for additional provision that is made, I feel that we have made out the case for this Supplementary Estimate, and I hope that hon. Members may feel that the money can now be voted.

Question put and agreed to.

Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND

9.20 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): In asking the House to approve this additional sum of £1½ million for the Scottish National Health Service, I should like to give a brief account of how it arises. The net sum is £1½million after the saving of approximately £250,000 in appropriations-in-aid. The sum consists of wages awards and prices, which account for nearly £700,000, and £750,000 on account of pharmaceutical services. I should like to speak briefly about the heavy increase in the pharmaceutical expenditure in Scotland.
In the revised Estimate which we had in July, we estimated for 21·5 million prescriptions at an average cost of 69·9d., or 5s. 9¾d. per prescription. In the event, we shall have 21 million prescriptions—half-a-million fewer than the Estimate—at—an average cost of 81d., or 6s. 9d. per prescription.
There are two main reasons for the increased cost per prescription. The first is undoubtedly the increasing use of such expensive drugs as cortisone, which has increased the drug bill by some £400,000. We can weigh against this increase the value of these drugs to the patient. I will not deal at length with the cost of drugs themselves, about which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has already spoken. It may interest the House to know that the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry is to give evidence soon to the Scottish Committee for Prescribing Costs, and we await with interest the views of the Committee on this difficult question.
I think I should give the House the interesting interim suggestions made by the Scottish Committee for Prescribing Costs, which sits under the Chairmanship of Sir James Douglas. My right hon. Friend asked for interim suggestions. The Committee recommends that the Deans of Medical Schools be approached about the need for all those engaged in training students in prescribing to stress the importance of economy in the use of drugs. It recommends that the issue to general practitioners of general practitioner prescribing statistics be speeded up

as far as possible. It recommends authority for hospital pharmacists, with the approval of doctors in charge of the wards, to supply identical standard equivalents for proprietary drugs prescribed unless a special need for a proprietary brand is indicated. Another important recommendation is that there should be consultation between doctors and pharmacists at hospital level to reduce as far as is possible the number of drugs of similar therapeutic effect requiring to be stocked.
The House knows that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) wishes to speak for a few moments, otherwise I should have dealt at greater length with this Supplementary Estimate. I assure the House that we are by no means complacent and that we intend to press on with this process. We have great hopes of the results which the Scottish Committee on Prescribing Costs will give us. I have pleasure in commending the Estimate.

9.24 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: In the few minutes which are left there are one or two questions which I should like to put, although I am afraid that I shall have to wait for the answers, as the axe falls at 9.30 p.m. I do not know whether I have the figure right—perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary of State will indicate assent or dissent—but I understand that the expectation of the cost of prescriptions was 5s. 9¾d. and the actual cost is 6s. 9d.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Mr. J. N. Browne indicated assent—

Miss Herbison: That seems a very big increase indeed. The equivalent figure given by the Minister of Health was 6s. 1d.

Mr. Browne: There are half-a-million prescriptions fewer, and there would have been 1½ million but for the influenza epidemic.

Miss Herbison: Yes, but that still means that our prescriptions are costing 8d. more than prescriptions in England and Wales.
I realise that this is a very unsatisfactory procedure and we may, when it comes to our general Estimates, have a better debate, but there is one question I should like to put to the Minister now. He knows, as I very well know from my


time in the office he now holds, that there has been great criticism by the Public Accounts Committee of the payment made for prescriptions to Scottish chemists. I would have liked tonight to have had time to find out whether the payment now made suits the views of the Public Accounts Committee better than it did.
In replying to the debate on the National Health Service for England and Wales, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the agreement made with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, and he pointed out that, in over 200 cases, there had been reductions. Of course, that was in over 200 cases out of 4,000. Again, from my reading and inquiries into this matter, I was of opinion that neither the Ministry of Health nor the Secretary of State for Scotland, nor, indeed, the Treasury, was at all satisfied with the agreement come to. Perhaps the Ministry can tell us.

Mr. Browne: No. I think that it is early days yet to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Miss Herbison: It may be so, but a spokesman who appeared before the Public Accounts Committee said that the Treasury, at any rate, was not at all satisfied with the arrangement which had been made. Will the Hinchliffe Committee examine this matter? It is of very great importance.
We want, wherever we possibly can, within reason, to cut down the cost, particularly of the pharmaceutical service, and, at the same time, not interfere with the real effectiveness of our National Health Service. The Joint Under-Secretary of State and the Scottish Department of Health would, I think, be in full agreement with that purpose. It seems to me that, wherever we possibly can, we ought to be carrying out reviews and examinations to ensure that, where savings can be made, those savings will quite definitely be made. For that reason, I am worried at the very great increase of the price of prescriptions in Scotland. Even the intervention of the Joint Under-Secretary has not given us the whole picture, I feel, or all the reasons that we should have had this very great increase.
I have looked at the Report for 1956–57 on the cost of the drugs which were

bought in bulk by hospitals, and here again I find that dissatisfaction was expressed in the examination of that matter. This was the Report published on 18th December, 1957. We are told that this agreement made with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry has been operating since June, 1957, yet, in paragraph 62 of the Report, it is said that, where tenders have been given for the 1956–57 contracts for five other drugs, with an estimated——

It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each of the remaining Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply but not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:—

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Sixth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Seventh Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eighth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House cloth agree with the Committee in their Ninth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Tenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eleventh Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twelfth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Thirteenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fourteenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifteenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Sixteenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Seventeenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eighteenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Nineteenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twentieth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twenty-first Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twenty-second Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twenty-third Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twenty-fourth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twenty-fifth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twenty-sixth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twenty-seventh Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twenty-eighth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:—

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [4th March] NAVY ESTIMATES, 1958–59 VOTE A. NUMBERS

That 112,000 Officers, Seamen and Juniors and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [6th March] ARMY ESTIMATES, 1958–59 VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 386,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [10th March] AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59 VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 203,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [13th March]

Resolutions reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1957, the sum of £469,985 15s. 0d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, the sum of £106,388,892 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, the sum of £1,855,920,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Simon.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)

Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, and one thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES LOANS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue until the end of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, the power to make advances under section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, it is expedient to authorise any increase, attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session extending the said power as aforesaid, in the sums which, under the said section forty-two, are authorised or required to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES LOANS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CONTINUANCE OF EXCHEQUER ADVANCES TO CERTAIN NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES AND UNDERTAKINGS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I want briefly to say only two things. Since the Financial Secretary has threatened us with some further measure in the Finance Bill to deal with loans to nationalised industries, we on this side of the Committee want to make it perfectly clear that we should be opposed to transferring these borrowings from the Budget and forcing the nationalised industries on to the money market.
We do not have the rather childlike faith which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is not with us tonight, confessed on Second Reading, in the identity between the interests of the money market and the national interest in this matter. I wonder what point there is in transferring these borrowings away from the Budget to the City. We ought to destroy once and for all the delusion under which the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) appears to labour, as well as the hon. Member for Kidderminster, that somehow by making this transfer it would be possible to reduce the level of taxation which the Chancellor has to impose in his Budget. This, of course, is total nonsense.
I do not think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will disagree with me that if we transfer £200 million of borrowing away from below-the-line in the Budget, where it is now, and put it in the money market instead and require the money to be borrowed there, it will absorb that amount of private savings which otherwise would have been available for something else. But because we have mopped up that amount of private savings, the Budget surplus will have to be that amount the larger. Therefore, the amount of taxes that we


shall have to raise will have to be exactly the same as it was before.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree with me that if we make this transfer and reduce taxation by that amount the effect will be exceedingly inflationary, but if, as we must do in this case, we leave taxation unchanged, it is a bookkeeping operation from the point of view of deflation and inflation, and it has no effect whatsoever on the economy. It astonishes me that the right hon. Member for Flint, West, who was a year or more at the Treasury, is still labouring under this total delusion. If this is the way in which Budgets have been constructed in the last two years, it may explain the repeated financial crises which we have been having in the last eighteen months. I do not ask the Financial Secretary to consult me, but if he will consult the Paymaster-General or any of his other colleagues in the Treasury, they will explain this matter to him and make it perfectly clear.
The only difference that we make if we transfer these borrowings to the money market will be either to make it impossible for the nationalised industries to borrow at all or, if they do borrow, to raise their costs by increasing the interest burden. If, indeed, at one and the same time we are to hold down the prices charged by the nationalised industries below the economic level and force them to borrow at a much higher interest rate, we shall make it impossible for those industries to carry on at all. It may be that that is what the hon. Member for Kidderminster really wants to do, but I hope that it is not what the Government want to do.
I agree with a great deal of what was said on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I think that he was right in saying that all of us in Parliament in the past have gone too far in controlling the price policies of these industries for political rather than economic reasons. If we are to make a success of these industries in the future, we shall have to give them more freedom in their price policies and continue to enable them to borrow for their essential development programmes at reasonable rates of interest.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I want to put again very shortly a point

which I raised on Second Reading and to which, as far as I can remember, the Financial Secretary did not reply, namely, how far there has been consultation with the nationalised industries on this matter and whether the House of Commons is to be provided at a later stage with any statement from the Government about the future long-term policy in financing the nationalised industries.
The Financial Secretary rather hinted that if there was to be a change then a change of a more permanent character would be made in the Finance Bill, but surely this is an extremely big question and I should have thought that it would have been valuable to the Committee, and particularly to those of us who try to follow these matters, if some kind of White Paper or other statement were issued by the Government giving the result of the method of doing the job up-to-date and indicating long-term policy for the future.

9.45 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I dealt so far as I could with the main arguments on each side on the Second Reading of this Bill, hoping in the end, I confess, to have said precisely nothing, because, of course, as I indicated, the policy as to how the nationalised industries should be financed must be put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in its proper context; in other words, in his development of his economic policy as contained in the Budget and Finance Bill.
The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) asked two specific questions as to how far there is consultation with the nationalised industries. Of course, there is constant consultation between the Ministers responsible for the nationalised industries and the heads of those industries as to what are their investment needs, and these are kept under review by the Government generally in reviewing their investment policy in the public and private sectors. So far as letting the House of Commons know what is the long-term policy on investment in the nationalised industries, I take note of what the hon. Gentleman suggested and will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I do not think the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will expect me to reply to what he said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I think I should only say that when I said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would deal with this matter in the Finance Bill, that was not a threat; it was a promise.

Mr. Jay: May I ask the Financial Secretary whether he will at least clear his own mind on this point before the Budget?

Mr. Simon: I am happy to say that my own mind is perfectly clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE (SCIENCE TEACHERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

9.48 p.m.

Mr. William Stones: Though I did not mention a specific case when I applied for the Adjournment on this question of exemption from National Service for scientific teachers in technical colleges, I will refer to one case; but I assure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that it is purely by way of illustration, and nothing more.
I propose to deal with the question of liability to call-up of science teachers in technical colleges as a national question and as a problem which, I believe, must be very seriously considered, because it affects the future well-being of the nation. I believe that it is now generally accepted that our future as a great nation depends largely on our skill to compete with the rest of the nations of the world, technically and technologically, and, indeed if possible to excel in these directions. No longer are we in the privileged position of being the workshop of the world. We occupied that proud position for many years when we had few real competitors. We were in the forefront of the industrial

revolution and made our country great, wealthy, and strong, both economically and militarily.
Now we find ourselves in quite a different position, faced with keen and growing competition. This will become fiercer as the markets of the world reach saturation point. There is no longer a sellers' market. We are not in nearly such a favourable position as we were even two or three years ago. I will not pursue this point, because most people will agree about it and we do not have to be brilliant economists to see what is happening in the world today. If we accept what I have said as the truth, it follows, in my opinion at least, that we must also recognise the need for the training of sufficient personnel in our various industries, and particularly in such industries as those which require a high degree of technical skill and attainment not yet required by some of our competitors in the world markets. Again, I think, there can be no quarrel between us on that point.
If we are to achieve this object, we must agree to provide the opportunities and facilities for the training of such personnel. This means, amongst other things, technical colleges and a properly trained technical staff for the colleges. We are lacking in this respect. I think it is true to say that we have not sufficient technical colleges in our country, but what is more disturbing to me is the lack of trained and qualified science teachers. From statistics which reached me recently I found that in Russia, for instance, for every 800 head of population there is one fully qualified science teacher. In this country, if the figures given to me are correct, we have for every 2,500 head of the population one science teacher. If that be so, not only must we try to make up the leeway but we must also make the best use of the teachers at our disposal.
My constituency is predominantly a mining and steel-making area, and in both of these great industries a high degree of technical skill and technology is required. We in the Consett division have staked our claim for technical colleges, and recently one was opened in the division. It is not a new building. It was a grammar school which was vacated when recently we opened a new grammar school. The old building has been partially adapted and is to be fully


adapted for use as a technical college. We are not complaining about that; indeed, we are grateful for the opportunity. Despite the fact that the building is already there and we are making the best use of it, I am told that when the adaptation is completed and the college is fully equipped the total cost will be in the region of £380,000. That is a lot of money, but everyone will agree that it will be money well spent if the college functions as it is intended. This college is intended to provide technical and scientific training for students for a vast surrounding area, and the enrolment figures are ultimately expected to be from 1,500 to 1,700.
Apart from the trained staff and personnel already required in coalmining and steel making in Consett, I am given to understand that there is to be a great extension of the already large iron works in Consett, which will require more men. This is all to the good of the people in the division, but it will require additional properly trained personnel, and these cannot be obtained unless we have an adequate staff of fully qualified scientific teachers. In Consett we are having great difficulty in getting the necessary qualified staff required. I suppose that we are not alone in this respect, and I have taken this opportunity to draw the attention of the Minister and the House to the fact in an effort, if possible, to bring about certain remedial action by the Minister.
I am informed that on six occasions recently the governing body of the college has advertised for an assistant teacher, Grade B, for the teaching of chemistry, metallurgy, physics and mathematics in this college. The net result of the advertisements is interesting. First of all, there were two applicants not qualified for the post. On the last occasion, one of two qualified applicants was appointed on 23rd January. As the successful applicant was liable to call-up because of his age, the Director of Education for the County of Durham was instructed to apply for indefinite deferment. The Minister could not grant this request, although he was very regretful in his reply.
I am not trying to persuade the Minister to reverse his decision about this man, because as a matter of fact this young man is not now to take up the

appointment. This, again, emphasises our difficulty, which is no doubt similar to that in other parts of the country. No doubt there is more than one reason for the man turning down the post, but it may well be that he has taken up another post with the possibility of deferment from National Service. This may or may not be patriotic on his part, but it is perfectly natural.
According to my information, graduates of universities with certain qualifications taking up posts in schools other than universities and technical colleges are deferred indefinitely from National Service so long as they continue in such posts in this country. We can readily appreciate properly qualified persons being preferred to take up posts in these institutions rather than in a technical college while still liable to call-up.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Mr. Stones: In this way, I submit, our technical colleges are at a disadvantage as compared with grammar schools when it is necessary to recruit professional staff. I have a great regard for grammar schools; I was a governor of one for many years, but I also have regard for our technical colleges. They are of equal importance. I cannot see why a grammar school should be placed in such an advantageous position when recruiting staff. It is unfair discrimination. It hinders recruitment of professional staff to our technical colleges and places an intolerable burden upon the responsible governing authorities.
On 19th February of this year, the Minister of Labour and National Service, in reply to Questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) in connection with the deferment of teachers in Scotland, agreed that the position was wholly illogical and also that unless science graduates were sufficient in numbers in our schools the source for all graduates would eventually dry up. What can be said of the teachers and schools in Scotland can be


said of those in England, and it applies equally to our technical colleges.
On that occasion the Minister also said that the needs of the Services must be met. That may well be so, but the same could be said of starving men devouring their seed corn. If we have the large schools and technical colleges the source of our future technicians will dry up. I cannot say how many fully qualified science teachers are affected by the present regulations, but the Minister has said, in his reply to a letter from the Director of Education, of the county of Durham that it is not very common for a student to have attained a qualification of degree level and subsequently adequate industrial experience before the age of 26, when he automatically becomes exempt from National Service. If they are few in number no great hardship or difficulty should be caused by granting deferment from National Service.
I have a little experience of industry and its technical and technological side, and I must agree with the Minister that it would be very unusual for a person with a university degree to have had industrial experience before he has reached the age of 26, but I also consider it possible and quite reasonable for fully qualified teachers in the subjects to which I referred at the beginning of my speech to be quite efficient in their work although they have not had industrial experience.
As for the needs of the Services, all I can say is that in any case, if the present proposals of the Government materialise, the call-up will cease in 1960. How will they manage, if they depend on the call-up, to get people qualified in certain subjects for the Services? We must pay regard to the desires of those who teach science subjects in technical colleges, because two years is a long time for them and may affect their whole future.
If we can agree on the principle that all have equal responsibility in this country regarding National Service, the question is how best we can serve the nation. We recognise, for instance, that a miner serves his country equally well as a man in the Forces. We must consider our educational needs. In my opinion, a fully qualified science teacher in a technical college will serve the needs of our nation far better by teaching at the college than in some branch of the Services where his skill and knowledge may not be put to its best use.
Recently, the Minister has made great concessions to teachers regarding deferment from National Service, and for that we thank him. But I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the need for more concessions, and I appeal to him to give further consideration to our request that technical colleges be included in the category of schools from which science teachers are granted deferment. I can assure the Minister that, if he does so, he will have our grateful thanks.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I wish to support the plea voiced so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Stones). It was not a plea to help one school or facilitate the administration of one school in his constituency This is something which affects the whole country. It does not refer only to a group of schools, but to many different kinds of schools. It concerns also the survival of Britain as a world Power. This matter of getting the right science teachers into the schools is relevant and fundamental to the economic dilemma of this country. I consider that the proper way to regard it.
We are a small island with a large population, but we are not large compared with some of the economic giants in the world; America, for example, on the one hand and Russia on the other. With new industrial nations arising in the years ahead we shall find difficulty in keeping our chins above water. We must mobilise our resources if we hope to survive as a great Power and one of the great manufacturing countries of the world. Our most valuable resources are the skill, genius and inventiveness of our people. We have a lot of coal as well, but that is about all—coal and brains. Brains are latent things and of use only if they are developed and trained.
We are entering a scientific age where the scientist will be the man who counts. We are entering an age when the whole balance of power may be changed by the scientists in the laboratories. In those circumstances, the sensible thing for any nation to do is to plan its resources both physical and human so that they may be used correctly. That is the only way in which we can maintain our very high standard of living.
Our limited number of trained scientists should be used as scientists


and as nothing else. That is obviously the sensible thing to do, either as scientists in industry or in teaching other scientists in education. It is an appalling waste to send science graduates into the Forces for a short period and into a job where they are not being used as scientists. It might be that in the Armed Forces there is a need for science graduates, but the sensible thing is for the Services to attract small cadres of permanent scientists for their own use. That is the sensible and economic thing to do, not to try to attract a number of science graduates with rather poorer degrees for two years at a time. They should attract their own scientists on a permanent basis.
The principle of deferment of science graduates has been admitted. I think I was one who suggested it originally, but it was then turned down out of hand. The principle has now been admitted. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will discuss this matter with his right hon. Friend to see whether the principle cannot be extended. He has mentioned a technical school in a very important steel-producing centre, one of the most important in the country. The technical school concerned is a very important link in the educational set up of the city.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the specific problem and to assist my hon. Friend by discussing the general question with his right hon. Friend to see whether the principle of deferment of graduates cannot be extended to science graduates in all schools.

10.12 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I intervene briefly to support the plea that has been made by my hon. Friends. The issue is a narrow one. I echo the plea made to the Minister for deferment of science graduates and the exemption of science graduates going into technical colleges. There are many, and I have had correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary on the subject of deferment on behalf of the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutes, the A.T.T.I. The Minister is asked to extend to the technical colleges and institutes the practice that he has already carried out in relation to secondary schools. He will thus be providing technical colleges with a much

needed little group of technical teachers with science qualifications who will not go into the grammar schools otherwise, but may be lost to education if they have to go to National Service.

10.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I agree most strongly with what hon. Members have said about the importance to the country of maintaining a paramount position in technical development. There is no doubt that if we are to do that we need an adequate number of technical colleges. Such an expansion is, in fact, going on, as hon. Members know. Then there is need not only for technical colleges, but for adequate staff. There is no doubt that technical colleges need more teachers than they have at the moment.
I will take notice of what was said by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Stone) about the position in his constituency. I appreciate that this is a particular problem for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, and I will take care that the matter is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Instead of making this speech tonight, I might perhaps do more good by going to Consett and looking at the situation myself. I happen to be a Fellow of the Institution of Metallurgists. However, here I am, so I shall try, as best I can, to deal with the matters that have been raised.
I should like to thank the hon. Members for what they have said about the recent extension of deferment for teaching that has been possible, but, tonight, I shall not be able to promise them the further extension for which they ask. But even though I shall explain why I think that, at this moment, we should not extend it in the way asked, I assure the hon. Gentlemen that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter very carefully and that we will take into account what has been said tonight.
This shortage in the technical colleges is, of course, only one aspect of the national shortage of scientists and technologists and, for some years to come, at any rate, however we distribute those we have, there will not be enough of them. There will be a shortage somewhere or other. The real question is whether our present priorities are reasonably correct,


or whether, by shifting the balance of the deferment arrangements, we could get a better distribution. I think that that is the sort of planning which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) would approve.
What is the present position? First, of course, we must realise—and I know that the hon. Members who have raised this debate do realise, but I should like to make it clear, because what we say here is read more widely, and may be read by those to whom the facts are not so well known—that teaching in technical colleges already benefits from deferment. First-class graduates in science, mathematics or engineering, or graduates with second-class honours in the same subjects who have subsequently taken a higher degree, such as Ph.D., are deferred for teaching posts in technical colleges. Thus, in this respect, technical colleges are on a par with other forms of employment for which these qualifications are required—with one exception that I shall mention later. Technical colleges, therefore, already get substantial help in their staffing problems from our existing deferment arrangements.
It is true, however, that secondary schools get even more favoured treatment. A man can get deferment for teaching in a secondary school not only if he has a first-class degree or a second-class degree, plus a higher qualification in science or mathematics, but also if he has a second-class degree, on its own, in mathematics or science, or any class of degree in chemistry or the biological sciences, or a general degree in science. Therefore, the field of deferment for a man taking a teaching post in a secondary school is wider than if he took a post in a technical college.
What I want to make clear is that that is not accidental. This differentiation is a deliberate decision of policy. We want to give secondary schools more favoured treatment, and it is not an accident that they have got it. There are three reasons for this differentiation.
The first, and by far the most important reason, is the greater need of the schools. In 1957 in England and Wales there were about 12,250 graduate teachers of mathematics and science in the schools, and at least 300 unfilled vacancies. That is the present position, but between 1957 and 1964 it is expected that

the number of children over 15 years old in the schools will increase from about a quarter of a million to nearly half a million. That is to say, they will almost double in that seven-year period. Although it is difficult to predict accurately how many extra mathematics and science teachers will be required by the schools, it will obviously be a very considerable number and, equally obviously, it will be very difficult to find a number sufficient to meet that need.
Thanks mainly to the deferment schemes the number of mathematics and science teachers in the schools has increased by just over 500 between 1956 and 1957, compared with an increase of 300 and 200 in the two previous years. But even if a net annual increase of 500 could be maintained it is clear that there is a distinct and disturbing possibility of overcrowded mathematics and science classes in sixth forms during the coming years, and it is, therefore, vital, in our opinion, that nothing should be done which is likely to reduce the flow of such teachers into our secondary schools.
Any failure in this recruitment to the schools must be felt in the end not least in the technical colleges themselves, because it is on the schools that the colleges must rely for the supply of students with an adequate grounding in mathematics and science. If that foundation is not laid in the schools then the Government's plan for a major expansion in scientific and technological education will be placed in very serious jeopardy. While I am in no way seeking to minimise the urgent need of technical colleges, I am stressing what we believe is the even greater need of the schools competing for the same personnel. That is the first reason why we maintain this differential.
The second reason which, although not as important as the first, is, nevertheless, significant, is that we think it desirable that the teacher taking up a teaching appointment in a technical college should have had some experience in industry. I know that that is not absolutely essential and I know that it may never be possible for all technical college teachers to have had that industrial experience, but there is undoubtedly a difference between science and engineering as taught at university and as applied in industry.
I well remember that when I first went into a metallurgical laboratory in industry the work seemed to be very different


in the first few months from what I had learned in university, and there is no doubt that one gets a very different slant on these subjects when they are applied to industry from the way in which they are taught and practised in the university. It is valuable that as many as possible of the teachers in technical colleges should have had industrial experience for a few years.
If we gave further deferment concessions solely to technical colleges, it would undoubtedly reduce the proportion of their staff who would have had some industrial experience. We, therefore, believe that any extension to benefit technical colleges ought also to be given to jobs requiring similar qualifications in industry.
This, of course, was recognised by the Willis Jackson Committee which, as I am sure the House knows, was set up by the Government in September, 1956, to look into the question of the supply of teachers for technical colleges. It is important that we should be clear about what the Willis Jackson Committee recommended. It did not ask for more deferment for newly qualified graduates entering technical colleges directly from universities. What it suggested was a more general and much broader extension of deferment for graduates entering employment which required scientific or engineering qualifications of degree standard.
Such a widening of the scope of deferment would, the Committee suggested,
bring into the field of recruitment for technical colleges a further group of science and technology graduates who, if enabled to begin their responsible industrial experience two years earlier, might be able to alleviate the shortage of staff in the colleges in the critical years ahead.
The Government have moved a considerable way in the direction wanted by the Willis Jackson Committee, but we have not gone as far as that Report recommended because of the overriding need to maintain some preferential incentive in favour of recruitment for the secondary schools. We still believe that it is important to maintain that preference in favour of the schools because of the urgent need to meet the problem of the bulge which will be going through the secondary schools in the next few years.
The third reason why I must resist at the moment any further extension beyond what we have done is the needs of the Services themselves, to which both the hon. Member for Consett and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central have referred. I agree that in the long run the proper solution for the needs of the Services is to recruit scientists on a long-term Regular basis. I understand that that is the basis of the Government's policy for manning the Services not only in relation to scientists, but in relation to all the men which the Services require.
Until that new policy of recruitment has been pushed forward and has been seen to be successful, however, we must rely upon National Service. We must rely upon National Service even to supply the more limited needs of the Services for skilled scientific manpower just as to supply personnel for any other branch. The needs of the Services, although I put them third, are a reason which we cannot overlook altogether.

Mr. Short: Has the hon. Gentleman any information about the use to which science graduates are put in the Services? We have a suspicion that, in a good many cases, they are not being used in science jobs at all.

Mr. Carr: I cannot answer that question. I should be rather rash if I tried to reply for my two right hon. Friends and my noble Friend in charge of the Service Departments. But I agree that it is important that, if a scientist is called up for service in the forces, he should be used in his capacity as a scientist, and in cases where we can bring influence to bear from my Department to see that that is done, we will do so.
That is the general case, and, against that background, I should like, in the few moments that remain, to look at the current position in the technical colleges. The Willis Jackson Committee assessed that in England and Wales the technical colleges needed at an increase of 7,000 full-time teachers between 1956 and 1960–61, an average annual increase, that is, of about 1,400. In 1956, there was a net increase of about 900. Although we have not yet the final figures for 1957, it appears that there has been a net increase of well over 1,000. In 1958, the current year, indications are that we may hope for an


increase not far short of 1,400. This progress is encouraging.
I must tell the House, however, that the progress is uneven. Recruitment in certain important categories is not increasing as fast as the average, particularly for the sort of teachers needed for some of the advanced courses in science and technology. There are, none-the-less, four reasons for reasonable hope that our needs will be met.
First, the substantial increases in salary granted in October, 1956, have stimulated recruitment, and we hope, will continue to do so. Secondly, the rundown in our defence programme—here I refer to civilian defence production—will free an increasing number of scientists and engineers for other employment. Thirdly, the reduction in the size of the Armed Forces should release a number of ex-Regular Service men who will, in our opinion, have the experience and personal qualities to attract them to, and make them suitable for teaching. Fourthly—this is important—the number of science and engineering graduates completing their National Service this year will be about double the number we are likely to call up.
Finally, in considering whether we can further extend deferment of scientists, to help technical colleges or anybody else, we ought to remember how little scope there is since so many scientists are already deferred. The number deferred is much larger than the number called up. In 1957, National Service took only about one-fifth of the graduates coming into the field, and this small proportion included men with degrees in agricultural and biological subjects, in which civilian demand is not so pressing. Four-fifths are already being deferred. Therefore, although I do not belittle the importance of having even a few more deferred, I feel that we should remember that the scope still left for deferment is relatively small.
I thank the hon. Member for Consett for raising this matter. I hope that some of the reasons I have given will, at least, satisfy him that our policy is a thoughtful one. I undertake to him that we will keep in mind the points of view he has raised, and that we will continue to watch the matter as carefully as we can.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.